M 


I  fir 


y^ 


^fe- 


\w 


'^3- 


^^^W^' 


LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

University  of  California. 


GIF^T  OF" 


Class  ^'^'^^ 


THE   TEN   NEQUDOTH 
OF  THE  TORAH 

OR 

THE  MEANING  AND  PURPOSE  OF  THE 
EXTRAORDINARY  POINTS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

(MASSORETIC   TEXT) 

A  Contribution  to  the  History  of  Textual  Criticism 

AMONG  THE  ANCIENT  JEWS 
BY 

ROMAIN   BUTIN,  S.  M.,  S.  T.  L. 


H  S)f06ertatfon 


SUBMITTED  TO  THE  FACULTY  OF  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  UNIVERSITY  OF  AMERICA  IN 
CONFORMITY  WITH  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


BALTIMORE 

J.   H.   FURST   COMPANY 

1906 


BIOGRAPHY. 


The  author  of  this  Dissertation,  Romain  Butin,  was  bom  Decem- 
ber 3, 1871,  at  Saint-Romain  d'Urf(§,  department  of  Loire,  France. 
After  a  preparatory  training  in  the  schools  of  his  native  town,  he 
pursued  the  study  of  the  classics  at  the  '  Ecole  Cl^ricale  ^  of  Les 
Salles,  and  at  the  '  Petit  S6minaire '  of  Saint-Jodard,  in  the  same 
department.  In  1890,  he  came  to  America  and  spent  two  years 
in  the  study  of  Philosophy  at  the  scholasticate  of  the  Marist 
Fathers,  in  Maryland.  He  then  entered  the  Society  of  Mary,  and 
after  two  years  of  active  work  at  Jefferson  College,  Louisiana,  came 
to  the  Marist  College  near  the  Catholic  University  of  America, 
Washington,  D.  C,  for  his  theological  training.  In  1898,  he 
matriculated  at  the  Catholic  University,  where  he  followed  the 
courses  of  Moral  Theology  under  the  late  Prof.  Th.  Bouquillon, 
of  Sacred  Scripture  under  Prof.  C.  P.  Grannan,  and  of  Hebrew 
under  Prof.  H.  Hyvernat.  In  1900,  he  received  the  Degree  of 
Licentiate  of  Theology,  and  was  appointed  professor  of  Hebrew 
and  Sacred  Scripture  at  the  Marist  College.  In  the  fall  of  the 
same  year,  he  registered  in  the  Department  of  Semitic  and 
Egyptian  Languages  and  Literatures.  Since  then,  while  continu- 
ing the  study  of  Sacred  Scripture  under  Prof.  C.  P.  Grannan, 
he  has  devoted  most  of  his  time  to  the  Hebrew  and  Aramaic 
Languages  and  to  post-Biblical  Jewish  Literature  under  Prof. 
H.  Hyvernat. 


••• 
lU 


155461 


PREFACE. 


Assuming  that  from  an  early  date,  unavoidable  errors  have 
crept  into  the  text  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  the  question  arises, 
have  the  Jews  tried  to  restore  that  text  to  its  primitive  purity  ? 
if  so,  as  is  generally  granted,  at  what  date  did  they  realize  the 
necessity  of  such  a  critical  revision?  and  what  means  did  they 
take  to  effect  their  pui'pose?  We  believe  there  is  no  rashness 
in  asserting  that  the  last  two  questions  have  never  been  fully 
solved,  and  are  consequently,  still  open  for  discussion.  It  is 
true  that  the  ancient  Qeres,  as  well  as  many  extraordinary 
features  of  the  textus  receptus,  such  as  the  Pisqa  or  blank  space 
in  the  middle  of  verses,  the  Suspended  Letters,  the  Inverted 
NunSy  the  Extraordinary  Points,  etc.,  all  of  which  are  partly  at 
least  anterior  to  the  Talmud,  have  been  repeatedly  examined  and 
interpreted  in  various  ways;  yet,  as  to  the  true  purpose  and 
meaning  of  these  pre-Talmudic  textual  peculiarities,  there  exists, 
among  scholars,  the  most  discouraging  absence  of  agreement, 
and  a  solution  that  would  command  universal  assent,  is  still  a 
desideratum. 

The  hope  of  contributing,  even  in  a  small  measure,  to  the 
attainment  of  this  end,  has  prompted  us  to  investigate  the  meaning 
of  the  so-called  Extraordinary  Points,  and  find  out  whether  or  not 
they  are  an  evidence  of  a  critical  effort  on  the  part  of  the  ancient 
Jews. 

It  is  our  pleasing  duty  to  express  our  gratitude  to  Prof  H. 
Hyvernat,  not  only  for  the  constant  and  manifold  encouragement 
that  he  has  given  us  in  the  preparation  of  this  Dissertation,  but 
also  for  the  unsparing  care  and  kindness  with  which  he  has 
directed  our  Semitic  studies. 

We  must  also  acknowledge  our  indebtedness  to  Dr.  S.  Schechter, 
President   of  the  Faculty  of  the  Jewish  Theological  Seminary, 

V 


yi  Preface, 

New  York,  and  to  Dr.  G.  F.  Moore,  Professor  of  the  History  of 
Religions,  in  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.,  who  have 
consented  to  read  the  first  redaction  of  this  work,  and  to  whom  we 
are  under  obligation  for  many  valuable  remarks  and  suggestions. 

Our  thanks  are  no  less  due  to  Dr.  I.  Casanowicz,  of  the 
National  Museum,  Washington,  D.  C,  for  his  kind  assistance 
towards  the  correct  understanding  of  many  Rabbinical  texts. 

Let  us  add,  how^ever,  that  none  of  these  scholars  are  in  any  way 
responsible  for  the  views  and  conclusions  which  we  advocate,  and 
that  to  us  alone  are  to  be  attributed  any  shortcomings  the  reader 
may  detect  in  the  present  Dissertation. 

ROMAIN   BUTIN. 

The  Marist  College,  January,  1906. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


PAGE. 

Biography iii 

Preface v 

Abbreviations xi 


CHAPTER  I. 

INTRODUCTORY. 

1-4.      A.  Aim  and  Scope  of  the  present  work 1 

5-14.     B.  Historical  sketch  of  the  various  opinions  regarding    the 

meaning  of  the  Points 3 

(7.  Arguments  to  be  used  in  the  solution 11 

15.  General  Remarks 11 

16.  First  Argument.      Mental  Preoccupations  at  the  time  when  the 

Points  originated 12 

17..  Second  Argument.     Palaeography 13 

18.  Third  Argument.     Textual  Criticism 14 

19.  Fourth  Argument.     Jewish  Writings 15 


CHAPTER  II. 
GENERAL  ARGUMENTS   ON  THE  POINTS. 

Section  I.    Approximate  Age  of  the  Points. 

20.  Konigsberger' 8  opinion 19 

21.  The  Points  are  older  than  R.  Meir 20 

22.  The  Points  are  anterior  to  the  Second  Century  A.  D 20 

23.  The  Points  are  as  old  as  the  Christian  era 21 

24.  The  Points  probably  belong  to  the  period  of  the  Soferim 23 

25.  26.     Lagarde's  View 24 

Section  II.    Mental  Activity  of  the  Jews  during  that  period. 
Influence  of  Alexandria  over  Palestine. 

A.    Textiial  Preoccupations. 

27-29.     The  Peculiarities  of  the  Text  were  noted  by  the  ancient  Jews.       26 
30-33.     Critical  Labors  among  the  ancient  Jews 27 

vii 


•  •• 

VIU 


Table  of  Contents, 


34.  Critical  Signs  in  Alexandria 30 

35-37.     The  Palestinian  Jews  were  acquainted  with  the  critical  signs 
of  the  Alexandrians,  and  probably  borrowed  their  graphical 

methods  from  them 31 

B.  Exegetical  Pi'eoccupations. 

38-39.     Alexandrian  Jewish  Exegesis 35 

40-41.     Palestinian  Exegesis 35 

C.  Meaning  of  the  Points  as  derived  from  the  preceding  remarks. 

42-44.     The  Points  have  not  an  exegetical  import 37 

45.  The  Points  have  probably  the  same  import  as  the  corresponding 

Greek  signs 39 

46-47.     Form  of  the  Nequdoth 39 

48-50.     Similar  Signs  in  Alexandria 42 

51.  The  iVisg-wdo^^  have  probably  the  value  of  a,  dele 43 

52.  This  conclusion  is  strengthened  by  the  meaning  which  other 

nations  and  the  Jews  themselves,  at  a  later  date,  attri- 
buted to  dots 43 

53-54.     Objection  of  Konig  and  Levias 45 

Section  III.    Jewish  Testimonies  on  the  Points  in  General. 

56.  Preliminary  remarks 46 

57-58.     Euleof  E.  Simeon  B.  Eleazar 46 

59.  Eule  of  Eabbi 48 

60.  View  of  some  mediaeval  Eabbis 50 

61.  The  testimony  of  the  Zohar 50 


CHAPTEE  III. 

THE     INDIVIDUAL    POINTED    PASSAGES    IN     THE     LIGHT  OF 
TEXTUAL  CEITICISM  AND  OF  THE  JEWISH  WEITINGS. 

62-64.       Indication  of  the  various  Testimonies  on  the  Points 52 

65-66.       Testimony  of  Sifre 55 

67-71.       Genesis  xvi,  5 57 

72-76.       Genesis  xviii,  9 62 

77-81.       Genesis  xix,  33 67 

82-88.       Genesis  xxxiii,  4 72 

89-92.       Genesis  xxxvii,  12 78 

93-95.       Numbers  iii,  39 81 

96-lOL     Numbers  ix,  10 84 

102-107.     Numbers  xxi,  30 88 

108-118.     Numbers  xxix,  15 92 

119-129.     Deuteronomy  xxix,  28 100 


Table  of  Contents, 


IX 


CX)NCLUSION. 

130.  Preliminary  remarks 108 

131.  The  Points  are  not  due  to  chance 108 

132-134.     The  Points  have  not  an  exegetical  import 109 

135-138.     The  Points  do  not  correspond  to  our  Italics Ill 

139-143.     The  Critical  Theories  examined.     The  Points  are  real  dele- 
tions   113 

APPENDIX. 


144-153.     Texts  of  the  Jewish  Testimonies  on  the  ten  pointed  pas- 

of  the  Pentateuch 119 


Bibliography 131 


ABBREVIATIONS, 


Apart  from  the  common  abbreviations,  or  those  in  which  the 
abbreviated  word  is  easily  recognized,  we  have  also  used  the 
following : 


Aboth  de  K.  Nathan 

(1)  or  (2)  —  (First  recension)  or  (Second 

recension). 

AJP. 

=  American  Journal  of  Philology. 

Blau,  MU. 

=  Blau,  Masoretische  Untersuchungen. 

Cheyne's  EB. 

=  Cheyne's  Encyclopaedia  Biblica. 

Hamburger  EEdJ. 

=  Real-Encyclopadie  des  Judentums. 

Hastings'  DB. 

=  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible. 

ICC. 

=  The  International  Critical  Commentary, 

etc. 
=  The  Jewish  Quarterly  Review. 

JQR. 

Kitto's  CBL. 

=  Kitto's  Cyclopaedia  of  Biblical  Litera- 

ture. 

Konigsberger,  MuTK 

.  =  Aus  Masorah  und  Talmudkritik. 

MM. 

=  Massorah  Magna. 

MP. 

=  Massorah  Parva. 

PB. 

=  Polychrome   Bible,    i,   e..  The   Sacred 

Books  of  the  0.  T.  printed  in  colors. 

PSBA. 

=  Proceedings  of  the   Society  for  Bibli- 

cal Archaeology. 

EB. 

=  Revue  Biblique  Internationale. 

REJ. 

=  Revue  des  Etudes  Juives. 

Smith's  DB. 

=  Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible. 

TSK. 

=  Theologische  Studien  und  Kritiken. 

ZAW. 

=  Zeitschrift    far    die    alttestamentliche 

Wissenschaft. 

ZMDG. 

=  Zeitschrift  der  Deutschen  Morgenland- 

ischen  Gesellschaft. 

ZWT. 

=  Zeitschrift  far  wissenschaftliche  Theo- 

logie. 

XI 


MEANING  AND   PURPOSE  OF  THE 
EXTRAORDINARY  POINTS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 


CHAPTER  L 
INTEODUCTORY, 


A,    Aim  and  Scope  of  the  Peesent  Work. 

1.  In  the  Massoretic  text  of  the  Bible,  fifteen  passages  are 
found,  in  which  one  or  more  letters  or  even  entire  words 
are  marked  with  points  that  cannot  be  accounted  for  by  the 
so-called  Massoretic  punctuation.  These  points,  for  this  reason, 
are  known  as  the  Puncta  Extraordinariaj  '  Extraordinary  Points,' 
or  more  simply,  in  the  Jewish  writings,  as  the  Nequdoth,  '  the 
Points.'  ^  Of  the  fifteen  passages,  ten  occur  in  the  Pentateuch, 
four  in  the  Prophets,  and  one  in  the  Hagiographa.  They  are 
the  following : — Gen.  xvi,  5,  *]"ij''m  ''J^'D  r\^rv  ^BW  ;  Gen.  xviii,  9, 
vbt^  noN^T  ;  Gen.  xix,  33,  noipm  n2DW2  y"!''  N^l  ;  Gen.  xxxiii, 
4,  inpti^^l ;  Gen.  xxxvii,  12,  ]^)i  hx  myi^  ;  Num.  iii,  39,  jinxi ; 
Num.  ix,  10,  npm  ^mn  IX ;  Num.  xxi,  30,  KD'T'D  ^V  '^^^  HDJ  ^V  ; 
Num.  xxix,  15,  )nw  ])^WV) ;  Deut.  xxix,  28,  o'piy  IV  ^^'^th'i  ^:b ; 
2  Sam.  xix,  20,  NiJ''  IVJi^i  DV2  ;  Isaiah,  xliv,  9,  hb  'i  Dnnj;i  ; 
Ezech.  xli,  20,  byhn  ^y) ;  Ezech.  xlvi,  22,  niyHpnb  ;  Ps.  xxvii, 

13,  i^h)b . 

2.  ■  As  may  be  seen  in  the  title  of  our  Dissertation,  our  present 
study  is  limited  to  the  ten  Nequdoth  of  the  Pentateuch ;  this 
course  was  suggested  to  us  by  considerations  which  it  will  not 
be  amiss  to  present  to  the  reader.  Though  in  point  of  origin, 
all  the  Nequdoth  may  belong  to  the  same  epoch,^  still  a  sharp 

*  On  the  precise  meaning  of  mnlp2,  see  lower  down,  §  46. 
^Cp.  Strack,  Prolegomena^  p.  90, 


2  ^    Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

distinction  seems  to  have  been  made  by  the  Jews  themselves, 
between  the  Points  of  the  Torah  and  those  of  the  other  books. 
"While  the  four  dotted  passages  of  the  Prophets  are  nowhere 
mentioned  before  the  Massorah  of  the  vi  or  vii  century  A.  d., 
the  ten  passages  of  the  Law  form  a  well  defined  group  and  are 
explained  in  Sifre.^  This  list  of  Sifre,  with  or  without  the 
explanations,  and  with  more  or  less  variations,  is  reproduced  in 
many  of  the  subsequent '  Jewish  works.  The  individual  dotted 
passages  of  the  Law  are  besides,  mentioned  and  explained  in 
several  places  of  the  Talmud  and  Midrashim.^  We  have  there- 
fore in  those  explanations,  for  the  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  a 
whole  line  of  evidence  which  is  entirely  lacking  in  the  case  of  the 
four  passages  of  the  Prophets,  since  on  them  no  explanations  are 
ever  given. 

The  only  passage  of  the  Hagiographa,  viz.  Ps.  xxvii,  13, 
though  mentioned  in  the  Talmud — Berakhoth  4a — and  there, 
explained  in  the  name  of  E.  Jose  (2nd  cent.  A.  D.),  has  never 
been  included  in  any  of  the  various  lists  of  the  Nequdoth,  other 
than  in  those  of  the  Massorah,^  and  consequently  it  has  never 
partaken  of  the  official  character  of  the  Points  of  the  Law. 

3.  Still  less  do  we  intend  to  treat  of  passages  that  are 
occasionally  pointed  in  mss.  but  never  mentioned  among  the 
Nequdoth^ 

Finally,  we  also  exclude  from  our  present  study  Num.  x,  35  f. 
It  is  true  that  Sifre  requires  points  on  the  passage  in  question, 
"  ntOD^Ol  rhvt:hti  Vbv  *11p:i,"  ^  but  the  specification  HiOD^lOl  H^^D^D 
shows  that  we  have  to  deal  here  with  a  palseographical  sign 
different  from  the  simple  Nequdah,  and  needing  a  special  and 

^According  to  a  growing  tendency,  we  write  ' Sifre,'  although  it  might  be  more 
according  to  philological  methods  to  write  '  Siphre, '  ;  in  the  same  way,  we  write 
*Soferim,'  instead  of  'Sopherim.'  Sifre  is  a  Jewish  Halachic  Commentary  on 
Numbers  and  Deuteronomy  ;  in  its  present  form  is  commonly  ascribed  to  the  ill 
cent.,  A.  D.,  but  many  fragments  are  older  ;  cp.  lower  down,  §65. 

2  See  lower  down,  §§  63,  64,  etc. 

'  See  Massorah  Magna  on  Num.  iii,  39  ;  Ochlah  w^Ochlah,  ed.  Frensdorff,  n. 
96.     On  the  origin  of  the  term  'Massorah,'  see  Bacher,  JQB,  iii,  785 ff. 

*  These,  however,  shall  be  utilized  in  this  Dissertation,  §  52. 

5  §  84.     Ed.  Friedmann,  p.  22a  ;  cf.  Hamburger,  BEdJ,  ii,  1215. 


Ten  Exti^aordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch.  3 

independent  treatment.  It  may,  of  course,  have  the  same  mean- 
ing as  the  Points  proper,  but  Sifre  itself  does  not  include  it  in 
the  list  it  gives  of  them.  On  the  same  passage.  Sabbath  115a-b, 
simply  mentions  m''JD''D,  Soferim  vi,  1,  *11j;''tl^,^  while  the  Massorah 
prescribes  a  sign  known  as  the  Inverted  Nun.^  Let  us  add,  that 
in  Kabbinical  literature,  with  the  exception  of  Midrash  Mishle 
(which  however  leaves  out  Gen.  xviii,  9,  in  order  to  preserve  the 
official  number  of  the  dotted  passages),^  Num.  x,  35  f.  is  never 
counted  among  the  Nequdoth. 

For  all  these  reasons,  we  feel  justified  in  narrowing  the  scope 
of  the  present  work  to  the  Nequdoth  of  the  Law  as  given  in  the 
list  of  Sifre. 

4.  Nor  do  we  intend  to  discuss  ex  professo  all  the  questions 
that  might  be  raised,  in  connection  with  those  Extraordinary 
Points ;  out  of  the  many  problems  to  be  solved,  we  have  selected 
for  the  present  investigation,  the  one  having  reference  to  their 
meaning  and  purpose.  Logically,  perhaps,  this  would  not  be  the 
first  question  that  would  offer  itself  for  treatment,  but  in  import- 
ance it  ranks  first  and  foremost.  However,  the  minor  issues  have 
not  been  entirely  overlooked,  and  some  will  be  found  in  the 
course  of  this  dissertation ;  but,  as  we  have  touched  upon  them 
only  in  as  much  as  they  throw  additional  light  on  the  question 
of  the  meaning  of  the  Nequdoth,  their  complete  discussion  should 
not  be  expected  here. 

B.    Historical  Sketch. 

5.  The  problem  that  we  have  chosen  for  discussion  is  not 
entirely   new,    and   many   scholars   have   already,    explicitly   or 

1  This  word  is  corrected  into  "^"it""^  by  Krauss,  ZA  W,  1902,  pp.  57-65. 

2  See  M.  M.  on  Num.  x,  35  and  Ps.  cvii,  23  ;  Norzi,  Minchaih  Shai,  on  Num. 
X,  35,  has  the  sign  2  ;  cp.  Ginsburg,  Massorah  Compiled,  ii,  p.  259,  n.  15,  and 
Krauss,  I.  c.  On  the  Inverted  Nuns,  see  Blau,  MU,  pp.  40  fl.  and  the  authors 
quoted  by  him  ;  Harris,  JQB,  i,  137  ff.;  Konigsberger,  MuTK,  pp.  41  ff.;  Gins- 
burg, Introd.,  pp.  341  ff.  ;  Konig,  EinL,  p.  34;  Hyvernat,  Le  Language  de  la 
Massore,  BB,  1905,  pp.  212  f. 

3N:iV^  -iDr  rnC^O,  Prov.  xxvi,  24.     Ed.  Buber,  p.  100. 


4  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

implicitly,  expressed  their  views  on  it;  but  no  theory  has,  thus 
far,  secured  universal  acceptance,  or  pushed  its  claims  beyond  the 
limits  of  probability.  This  will  be  made  evident  from  the  follow- 
ing classification  and  analysis  of  these  various  opinions. 

The  explanations  of  the  Nequdoth  found  in  the  early  Jewish 
literature,  were  generally  accepted  without  further  comment,  by 
the  Jews  of  subsequent  ages,  as  giving  in  their  literal  sense,  the 
true  import  of  the  Extraordinary  Points.  These  Eabbinical 
explanations  seem  to  connect  with  the  Points — at  least  as  a 
mnemonic  device — a  special  thought  which  the  dotted  letters  or 
words,  of  themselves  would  never  suggest.  In  consequence,  this 
interpretation  of  the  Nequdoth  is  known  as  ^the  theory  of  the 
hidden  meaning.'  However,  there  have  always  been  among 
the  Jews,  even  in  the  Middle  Ages,  scholars,  such  as  Rashi,^  the 
Tosafists,^  Ba'al  ha-Turim,^  Albo,^  etc.,^  who  have  not  adopted 
these  opinions.  If  these  men  did  not  attribute  to  the  dots  a 
critical  value,  they  at  least  claimed  that  they  practically  annul 
the  words  or  letters  over  which  they  are  placed.  However,  these 
scholars,  as  far  as  we  know,  gave  no  special  reason  for  their  view, 
and  besides  they  do  not  seem  to  have  influenced  the  trend  of 
contemporary  thought. 

6.  As  for  Christian  scholars,  for  a  long  time  they  seem  to 
have  depended  solely  on  the  Jews  for  their  convictions  on  this 
question.^  Besides,  it  was  not  until  the  xvii  century  that  they 
began  to  take  an  interest  in  the  problem,  and  from  the  very  start 

1  Comm.  on  the  Talmud  of  Babylon,  M.  Pesachim,  ix,  2  ;  Baba  Metsi'a,  87a  ; 
Sanh.,  43b ;  Menachoth,  87b ;  also  C!omm.  on  the  Bible,  v.  g.  Gen.  xix,  33. 

2  On  Nazir,  23a ;  ou  the  Tosafists  see  Mielziner,  Introd.  to  the  Talmud,  p.  66  3. 
^On  Num.  xxi,  30;  on  Baal  ha-Turim  (Jacob  b.  Asher),  see  JE,  vii,  27 f. 
^Sefer  Iqqarim,  iii,  22  (end)  ;  cp.  Buxtorf,  Tiberias,  p.  180. 

^See  Blau,  Eird.,  p.  117,  n.  2;  Stern,  in  Weiss'  Beth  Ha-Midrasch,  1865,  pp. 
58-62  ;  also  PoUak,  ibid.,  p.  57. 

®Cp.  St.  Jerome,  De  Gen.  ad  lit.,  on  Gen.  xix,  33:  ''Appungunt  (Judaei) 
desuper  quasi  incredibile  et  quid  rerum  natura  non  capiat  coire  quemquam 
nescientem."  To  this  may  be  added  the  note  of  Origen(?)  found  in  some  mss. 
on  Gen.  xxxiii,  4;  we  reproduce  it  after  Field,  Hexapla,  ad  locum,  n.  6:  ''t6, 
KaTe(pl\r)<T€i/  ai/rbv,  Sirep  ia-rlv  'EPpaXa-rl  oieaa&KT),  iv  iravrl  'E^patKip  Bi^Xlcp  irepU- 
(TTiKTai,  o6x  'iva  fxi)  dvayiv(*)(rK7}Tai,  dW  viraiviTTO/x^prjt  Sxxirep  dia  to6tov  rijs  /3^/3\ou 
T^v  -rrovriplap  rod  'Hcrav  '  /card  d6\ov  yhp  KC(,Te<pi\r]cr€  rbv  '  Ia/cc«>j3. 


Ten  Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  5 

their  views  were  divided.  The  greater  number  still  adhered  to 
the  prevalent  theory  that  made  the  Nequdoth  express  a  hidden 
meaning,  though  some  occasionally  ridiculed  the  Jews  for  having 
attached  such  a  special  meaning  to  the  pointed  text-elements.  In 
this  class  we  have  Morinus/  Lightfoot,^  Surenhusius/  and  in 
recent  times  Alexander/  Klostermann  ^  and  Levias.^  Dillmann/ 
Konigsberger,^  Bertholet/  Steuernagel/"  Driver"  hold  also  the 
above  theory  by  exception  for  Dent,  xxix,  28,  as  does  also 
Gray^^  for  Num.  ix,  10. 

7.  Others,  finding  in  what  they  claimed  to  be  the  absurd 
character  of  the  Jewish  explanations  of  the  Nequdoth^  a  sign  that 
the  Jews  were  trying  to  account  for  what  they  did  not  under- 
stand— "sunt  palpitantia  Hebraeorum  judicia  ut  coecorum  in 
tenebris "  ^^ — rejected  these  explanations  as  not  giving  the  true 
motive  for  the  pointing  of  certain  textual  elements,  and  simply 
confessed  their  inability  to  reach  a  satisfactory  solution.  Thus 
Buxtorf,!*  Cappellus,^'  Walton.^^ 

8.  Finally,  others  took  a  still  more  radical  stand  by  attributing 
the  Points  to  chance  and  accident.  In  their  view,  the  explanations 
given  of  these  Points  are  due  to  the  superstitious  bias  of  the  Jews 


^  Exercitationum  Bihlicarum  de  Hebraei  Graecique  Textus  Sinceritate  Libri  duo 
(1669),  Lib.  II,  Exerc.  xii,  Cap.  vi,  p.  406. 

^  Opera  Omnia  (Koterdam,  1686),  vol.  i.  Chronica  Temporum,  p.  39.  Michaelis, 
Biblia  Hebraica,  on  Deuteron.  xxix,  28,  quotes  him  with  approval. 

^  /3//3Xos  KaTaWayijs,  p.  71. 

^3fasorah,  in  Kitto's  CBL,  in,  103. 

^Biicher  Samuelis,  etc.  (in  Strack's  Kurzg.  Comm. ),  note  on  2  Sam.  xix,  20. 

« Masorah,  in  JE,  viii,  368. 

"^  Quoted  by  Driver,  Deuteronomy,  p.  328,  note. 

UfuTK,  25  f. 

^  Beuteronomium  erkldrt  (in  Marti' s  Kurz.  Hand-Commentar  z.  A.  T. ),  p.  90. 

^®  tibersetzung  u.  Erkldrung  d.  Bucher  Deuteronomium  u.  Josua  (in  Nowack's 
Handkommentar),  p.  108. 

^^Deuteronomy  (in  the  International  Critical  Commentary),  p.  328. 

^^A  Optical  and  Exegetical  Commentary  on  Numbers  (in  the  International  Critical 
Commentary),  p.  85. 

i^Buxtorf,  Tiberias,  p.  181. 

1*  Tibenas,  p.  173  ff.  181. 

^°  Arcanum  Punctationis  Revelatum,  ii,  xii. 

^^Prolegomena,  Prol.  viii,  3. 


6  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

who  saw  mysteries  everywhere.  Thus  K.  Simon/  Guarin/  and 
in  modern  times  Green. ^ 

According  to  Buxtorf,  Cappellus,  and  .Walton,  the  problem  is 
insoluble ;  according  to  Richard  Simon  and  his  followers,  there  is 
no  problem  at  all.  Most  of  the  authors  mentioned,  apart  from 
the  fact  that  they  nev^er  thought  of  any  other  means  of  solving 
the  difficulty  save  through  the  data  from  the  Jewish  writings, 
evidently  took  it  for  granted  that  the  literal  interpretation 
was  the  only  one  that  could  be  placed  upon  these  Jewish  testi- 
monies. 

9.  In  1692,  Hiller  in  his  "De  Arcano  Kethib  et  Keri,"^ 
was  apparently  the  first  to  clearly  attribute  to  the  Points  a  critical 
value.  As  far  as  we  can  ascertain  from  quotations  made  from  his 
work,  he  claimed  that  the  Nequdoth  had  been  placed  to  cancel 
words  or  letters.  This  has  become  the  more  common  view  among 
subsequent  writers.  Thus  Houbigant,^  Heidenheim,^  Eichhorn,'^ 
de  Wette,«  Welte,^  Hupfeld,^«  01shausen,ii   Lagarde,!^   Smend,^^ 

^Histoire  Critique,  Ch.  xxvi,  p.  144  :  "Un  copiste  aura  laiss^  tomber  ....  une 
goutte  d'  encre  dont  il  se  sera  forme  quelque  point :  un  Juif  ensuite  superstitieux, 
qui  est  persuade  que  tout  ce  qui  est  dans  I'Ecriture  est  mystere,  meme  jusqu'aux 
plus  petits  points,  ne  manque  pas  d' in  venter  des  raisons  de  ce  pr^tendu  mystere." 
Cp.  Cappellus  and  Walton,  II.  cc. 

2  Gramm.  Hehr.  et  Chald. ,  ii,  p.  413. 

^  Hebrew  Grammar,  §  4. 

*  (Tubingen,  1692),  Lib.  i,  iii,  pp.  152  ff.,  quoted  in  Strack's  Prolegomena,  p. 
91,  and  in  Kosenmuller's  Scholia,  on  Num.  xxi,  30. 

^  Notae  Criticaein  Universos  Veteris  Testamenti  Libros  (Frankf.  a.  M.,  1777),  on 
Num.  iii,  39. 

«Pentat.  edit.  D^"^bNn  min  1ED,  quoted  in  Blau,  Einl,  117,  n.  2. 

"^  Einleitung  in  d.  A.  T.  {o  vols.,  Gottingen,  1823-1824),  i,  §  118. 

^  Lehrbuch  d.  Historisch-Kritischen  Einleitung  in  die  Kanonisch  ....  Biicher 
(6th  ed.,  Berlin,  1845),  §  89,  pp.  134  f. 

^In  Tubing.  Quartalfschrift,  1848,  p.  631,  quoted  in  Cornely,  Introductio  in 
Utriusque  Testamenti  Libros,  vol.  i,  254,  n.  11. 

^^Die  Psalmen  (4  vols.,  Gotha,  1855),  ii,  p.  112. 

^^Die  Psalmen  (Leipzig,  1853),  on  Ps.  xxvii,  13  ;  Beitrdge  zur  Kritih  des  Ueber- 
lieferien  Textes  im  Buche  Genesis  (in  Monatschr.  d.  Konigl.  Preuss.  Akad.  d.  Wis- 
senschaften,  1870,  pp.  380  ff.). 

^^  Mitheilungen  (4  vols. ,  Gottingen ,  1884-1891),  i,  19. 

i^Der  Prophet  Ezechid  (Leipzig,  1880),  on  Ez.  xlvi,  22. 


Ten  Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  7 

Cheyne/  Lambert/  Neubauer,^  Wellhausen/  Toy/  Cornill/  and 
in  some  passages  de  Rossi/  Geiger/  Dillmann/  Delitzsch/^ 
Strack/^  Hamburger/^  Gray/^  and  Baentsch.^*  Blau  ^^  and  Gins- 
burg  ^^  also  belong  to  this  class,  but  add  that  the  Points  occasion- 
ally indicate  that  another  reading  should  be  substituted  for  the 
present  Massoretic  one. 

lO.  In  the  middle  of  the  xviii  century  Hiipeden  ^^  treated  of 
the  Nequdoth  far  more  systematically  than  had  been  done  before, 
so  much  so  that  he  is  supposed  by  many  to  have  been  the  origi- 
nator of  the  critical  theories.  He  claimed  that  the  Points  had  been 
invented  mostly  to  mark  divergencies  between  MSS.,  and  that  on  this 
account  the  dotted  letters  were,  at  least  for  us,  critically  doubtful. 
His  view  has  been  accepted  by  Vogel,^^  Michaelis/^  Rosenmiiller/^ 

1  The  Book  of  Psalms  (New  York,  1888),  on  Ps.  xxvii,  13  ;  Isaiah  {PB.)  on 
Is.  xliv,  9. 

2  Les  Points  EztraordiTiaires,  BEJ,  xxx,  116-118. 
^JQB,  III,  540  f. 

^Book  of  Psalms  (in  PB.),  on  Ps.  xxvii,  13. 

^Ezechiel  (in  PB. ),  on  Ez.  xli,  20  ;  xlvi,  22. 

^Das  Buch  d.  Propheten  Ezechiel  (Leipzig,  1886),  on  Ez.  xli,  20  ;  xlvi,  22. 

'  Variae  Lediones,  on  Num.  iii,  39. 

^  Lesestucke  aus  der  Mishnah,  p.  86  f. ;  Urschrift,  etc.,  p.  257  f. ;  cp.  p.  185. 

^ Die  Genesis  (5th  edit.,  Leipzig,  1886),  on  Gen.  xvi,  5  ;  xxxiii,  4. 

^^ Neuer  Commentar  iiber  die  Genesis  (Leipzig,  1887),  on  Gen.  xvi,  5; 
xxxiii,    4. 

^^  Die  Biicher  Genesis  Exodus  Leviticus  u.  Numeri  (in  Strack's  Kurzgef.  Com- 
mentar), on  Gen.  xvi,  5;  xix,  33;  xxxiii,  4;  Num.  xxix,  15. 

12  BEdJ,  II,  p.  1215.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  Hamburger  derives  the  meaning 
of  the  Points  from  Sifre  §  84,  on  Num.  x,  35. 

13  Num.  xxi,  30. 

"^^  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numeri  ubersetzt  u.  erkldrt  (in  Nowack's  Handkommentar), 
on  Num.  iii,  39  ;  ix,  10. 

^^MU,  p.  8. 

^^Introduction,  etc.,  318  ff. 

^"^  Neue  wahrscheinliche  Muthmassung  von  der  wahren  Ursache  und  Bedeutung  der 
ausserordentlichen  Punkte  (Hannover,  1751). 

^^ Ludovici  Cappelli  Critica  Sacra  ....  Libri  sex  (3  vols.,  Halle,  1775),  vol.  i, 
pp.  455  ff. 

19  Orient,  u.  Exeg.  Biblioth.,  Th.  i,  p.  230  ;  Th.  xii,  p.  135. 

^®  Scholia  on  Num.  iii,  39  ;  on  Deut.  xxix,  28  ;  on  Ezechiel,  xlvi,  22  ;  on  Psalm 
xxvii,  13. 


8  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

Maurer/  Scholz,^  Eisenstein/  and  for  some  passages,  by  de  Rossi/ 
Geiger,^  Dillmann/  Delitzsch/  and  Hamburger.^ 

11.  Some  other  scholars,  while  admitting  the  Points  to  have 
a  critical  import,  simply  hold  that  they  were  placed  over  words 
and  letters  to  show  that  these  latter  were  considered  as  critically 
doubtful,  whatever  may  have  been  the  foundation  for  the  doubt. 
Thus  Kohler,^  Bottcher,^«  Keil,^^  Buhl,^^  gg^n^is  Patterson,i^  and 
occasionally  Geiger,^^  Strack,^^  Gray,*^  and  Baentsch.^^ 

12.  Akin  to  this  last  theory,  is  the  view  of  Konig,^^  who 
believes  that  the  dots  do  not  imply  any  positive  judgment  as  to 
the  doubtfulness  of  the  present  Massoretic  readings,  but  are  simply 
the  outcome  of  a  timid  suspicion  entertained  against  some  textual 
elements.  In  this  sense,  the  dots  would  correspond  to  our  inter- 
rogation mark,  placed  after  words  to  which  special  attention  is 
called  for  further  investigation. 

13.  A  last  theory  to  be  mentioned  here  is  the  one  found 

^  Commentarius  Grammaticm  Oritimis  in  Vetiis  Testamentum  {4  yoh.,  Leipzig,  1835- 
1847)  on  Num.  iii,  39  ;  see  however  Coram,  on  Psalm  xxvii,  13,  where  he  says 
that  N?l7  has  been  pointed  because  the  Jews  could  not  understand  it. 

^  Einldtung  in  die  Heiligen  Schriften  d.  alien  u.  Neuen  Testaments  (2  vols.,  Koln, 
1845),  vol.  I,  p.  421. 

^  In  Ner  ha-Maarabi,  i,  1-8,  etc. 

*  Variae  Lectiones,  Ezechiel,  xli,  20. 

^Lesestilcke,  1.  c.  ;  Ursehrift,  1.  c. 

^  Genesis,  xviii,  9  ;  xix,  33 ;  xxxvii,  12. 

'  On  Gen.  xviii,  9. 

^BEdJ,  II,  p.  1216. 

^In  Repertorium  f.  Biblische  u.  Morgenldndische  lAtteratur,  V,  43. 

^^Ausfilhrliches  Lehrhuch  d.  Hehrdischen  Sprache  (2  vols.,  Leipzig,  1866-1868), 
1,47. 

^^  Genesis  u.  Exodus  (2d  edit.,  Leipzig,  1866),  p.  160,  n.  1 ;  Cbmwi.  vber  Ezechiel 
(Leipzig,  1882),  on  Ezech.  xlvi,  22. 

^^Kanon  u.  Text  des  Alten  Testaments  (Leipzig,  1891),  §  35,  p.  105. 

^*  The  Book  of  Genesis  (in  PB,),  on  Gen.  xvi,  5  ;  xxxiii,  4. 

1*  The  Book  of  Numbers  (in  PB. ),  on  Num.  iii,  39. 

^Hl.  cc. 

1^  0.  c,  on  Num.  xxi,  30. 

"  O.  c,  on  Num.  iii,  39. 

18  O.  c,  on  Num.  xxi,  30. 

^^  Einleitung,  p.  33. 


Ten  Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  9 

in  the  Zohar/  It  has  been  advocated  by  Schwab,^  Biichler,^ 
Konigsberger/  adopted  on  one  passage  as  possible  by  Strack/  and 
given  as  an  alternative  probability  by  Levias.^  According  to  this 
view  the  Nequdoth  are  not  at  all  designed  to  throw  suspicion  or 
doubt  on  the  text,  but  correspond  to  our  underscoring,  underlin- 
ing, to  our  ^(sic)'  or  to  our  italics.  "Pour  souligner  un  mot,  une 
lettre,  on  pla9ait  des  points  sup^rieurs  correspondant  a  notre 
italique."  ^ 

14.  Apart  from  the  fact  that  most  of  the  advocates  of  the 
critical  theories  are  not  always  consistent,  it  is  to  be  noted  that 
with  the  exception  of  Hiipeden,  Blau,  Konigsberger,  and  Ginsburg,^ 
none  of  them  have  treated  the  question  at  any  length ;  they  are, 
as  a  rule,  satisfied  in  reproducing — tacitly  in  many  cases — the 
views  of  their  predecessors.  We  may  say  that,  until  recently, 
Hiipeden  was  the  final  authority  on  whom  subsequent  writers 
depended.  As  far  as  we  can  see  from  the  references  made  by 
scholars  to  Hiipeden's  work,^  his  conclusions  were  based  mainly, 
if  not  exclusively,  on  the  ordinary  methods  of  Textual  Criticism, 
and  especially  on  divergencies  between  mss.  He  does  not  seem 
to  have  directed  his  attention  to  the  mental  attitude  of  the  Jews 
at  the  time  of  the  origin  of  the  Nequdoth ,  nor  to  the  palseographi- 
cal  argument,  nor  to  the  data  of  the  Jewish  writings.  Besides, 
the  very  title  that  he  gave  to  his  work,  Wahrseheinliche  Muthmas- 
sung,  etc.,  sufficiently  indicates  that  he  did  not  consider  his 
arguments  conclusive,  and  that  he  proposed  his  view,  more  as  a 
hypothesis  than  a  proved  system.  His  method,  as  well  as  his 
conclusions,  seem  to  have  been  accepted  by  subsequent  writers ; 

^  Cabbalistic  work  attributed  to  Simon  b.  Yochai,  but  dating  probably  from  the 
XIII  Cent;  see  Zunz,  Gott.  Vort,  419  ff. 

^Talmud  de  Jerusalem^  V,  p,  138,  n.  1.  See,  however,  '■^Notice  sur  les  Points 
Voyelles,^^  p.  26:  "  ils  servent  a  d^noter  1' hesitation  du  scribe"  which  would  be 
the  view  of  Konig. 

^Entstehung  .  .  .  .  der  Hebr.  Ace,  Teil  i,  pp.  89,  97,  116,  HI. 

^MuTK.  p.  9;  cp.  p.  7. 

^  0.  c,  on  Num.  ix,  10. 

*  Masorah  in  JE,  viii,  p.  368. 

'  Schwab,  Talm.  de  Jer.,  L  c. 

^  It  is  to  be  noted  that  Ginsburg  avowedly  depends  on  Blau  for  his  views. 

^  See  Vogel,  Ludovici  Cappdli  Critica  Sacra,  L  c. 


10  ■      Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

for,  as  a  rule,  the  arguments  that  he  has  failed  to  consider  have 
also  been  neglected  by  those  that  came  after  him. 

In  view  of  the  complete  disagreement  among  the  various 
authors  mentioned  heretofore,  we  may  well  understand  the  judg- 
ment passed  by  Strack  in  1873,  on  the  then  existing  state  of  the 
controversy  relative  to  the  meaning  of  the  Extraordinary  Points : 
*^De  origine  et  significatione  punctorum  horum,  nihil  pro  certo 
affirmari  potest.  .  .  .  Nunc  plerique  puncta  lectionem  variam  vel 
corruptam  significari  existimant."  ^  The  same  judgment  could 
have  been  given  in  1891,  when  Blau  wrote  his  Ifasoretische 
Untersuchungen,  for,  nothing  of  any  consequence  was  published 
during  the  intervening  years.  Blau  was  the  first  to  use  the 
Jewish  writings  systematically  as  a  means  of  reaching  the  true 
import  of  the  Points.  His  scholarly  treatment  of  these  writings 
shows  a  great  progress  on  his  predecessors;  still  his  views  have 
not  as  yet  gained  universal  acceptance  and  his  system  has  been 
strongly  opposed  by  Konigsberger.  This  last  scholar  is  a  firm 
believer  in  the  Massorah  as  against  the  old  Jewish  Midrashic 
works.  He  claims  that  the  Points  are  Massoretic  and  conse- 
quently should  be  judged  according  to  the  methods  of  the 
Massorah ;  and  as  the  Massorah  is  supposed  by  him  to  have 
nothing  but  devices  to  preserve  the  text  as  it  had  been  received, 
the  Points  cannot  have  any  other  meaning.  Konig  is  also  at 
variance  with  Blau,  and  does  not  hesitate  to  qualify  Blau's 
reasoning  as  "  hinf allig.^^  However,  he  has  not  considered  the 
question  at  any  length,  and  has  devoted  to  it  only  two  pages 
of  his  Einleitung. 

If  the  reader  wishes  to  know  the  present  state  of  the  question, 
he  will  find  it  in  the  words  of  Levias,  JjE',  vol.  viii  (1904),  p. 
368,  art.  Masorah,  He  says:  "The  significance  of  the  dots  is 
disputed.  Some  hold  them  to  be  marks  of  erasure ;  others  believe 
them  to  indicate  that  in  some  collated  manuscripts  the  stigmatized 
words  were  missing,  hence  that  the  reading  is  doubtful ;  still  others 
contend  that  they  are  merely  a  mnemonic  device  to  indicate  homi- 
letical  explanations  which  the  ancients  had  connected  with  those 

^Prolegomena,  p.  90. 


Ten  Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  11 

words ;  finally,  some  maintain  the  dots  were  designed  to  guard 
against  the  omission  by  copyists  of  text-elements  which,  at  first 
glance  or  after  comparison  with  parallel  passages,  seemed  to  be 
superfluous  ....  The  first  two  explanations  are  unacceptable  for 
the  reason  that  such  faulty  readings  would  belong  to  kere  and 
ketib,  which,  in  case  of  doubt,  the  majority  of  manuscripts  would 
decide.     The  last  two  theories  have  equal  probability."  ^ 


(7.     Aeguments  to  be  used  in  the  Solution. 

15.  The  disagreement  which  we  have  noticed  among  scholars, 
is  not  caused  simply  by  the  different  interpretation  of  some  given 
individual  data,  but  is  primarily  traceable  to  the  radical  diver- 
gencies of  views  with  regard  to  the  arguments  that  should  be 
used  and  the  method  that  should  be  followed  in  the  solution  of 
the  problem.  Konigsberger,  for  instance,  when  he  opposes  Blau, 
does  not  say  that  the  latter  misunderstood  Sifre  and  the  other 
sources ;  he  himself  grants  that  such  documents  really  have  the 
meaning  given  them  by  Blau;  but  he  is  of  opinion  that  they 
should  not  be  trusted,  because  they  have  wrongly  attributed  to 
the  Nequdoth  the  same  meaning  as  to  the  palseographical  Greek 
or  Latin  dot.^ 

Besides,  it  is  our  conviction  that  a  great  deal  of  the  uncertainty 
is  due  to  the  lack  of  comprehensiveness  in  the  treatment  of  the 
Nequdoth,  We  think  that  the  whole  field  should  again  be  sur- 
veyed and  examined  in  the  light  not  only  of  one  or  two  lines  of 
argument,  but  of  all  the  evidence  combined.  On  the  one  hand, 
considered  individually,  some  of  the  arguments  adducible  may  be 
too  indefinite  to  allow  more  than  a  general  conclusion,  or  too 
inconclusive  to  warrant  more  than  a  probable  inference ;  hence, 
they  must  be  strengthened  by  the  other  elements  of  solution,  so 
that  from  the  cumulative  force  of  all,  a  satisfactory  conclusion 
may  be  reached.     On  the  other  hand,  it  may  also  happen  that 

^  The  same  hesitancy  is  seen  in  Weir,  History  of  the  Hebrew  Text,  pp.  53,  54. 
In  fact,  he  does  not  seem  to  have  any  definite  system. 
^MuTK,p.  9-10. 


12  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

what  would  seem  almost  certain  in  the  light  of  one  line  of 
argument,  may  be  partially  or  entirely  disproved  by  another.  It 
is  then  only  by  comparing  the  various  partial  results  with  one 
another,  and  by  controlling  the  one  by  the  other,  that  we  may 
safely  come  to  a  scientific  and  final  conclusion. 

We  now  beg  leave  to  set  before  the  reader  the  main  lines  along 
which  the  investigation  should  be  carried  out. 

16.  The  first  means  of  solution  is  derived  from  the  circum- 
stances of  the  time  during  which  the  Nequdoth  came  into  existence. 
This  is  simply  the  application  to  the  Nequdoth  of  the  principle — 
universally  acknowledged  in  theory,  but  very  often  ignored  in 
practice — that  every  effect  must  be  judged  in  the  light  of  its 
cause  or  causes,  and  that  every  historical  fact  must  be  considered 
in  its  surrounding  historical  circumstances.  Man  is  a  social 
being,  and  as  such,  necessarily  depends  on,  and  undergoes  the 
influence  of,  his  contemporaries  and  countrymen.  The  tendencies, 
ideals,  and  preoccupations  of  his  age  and  country,  are  also  to  a 
great  extent  his  own  preoccupations  and  tendencies.  There  may 
be — and  seemingly  there  have  actually  been — sudden  departures 
from  the  received  ideas  of  one  epoch,  but  this  is  the  exception, 
not  the  rule;  and  besides,  when  more  closely  examined,  the 
dependence  of  these  apparent  departures  on  the  mental  attitude 
then  prevalent,  can  often  be  clearly  established.  Man  therefore 
lives  with  his  age  and  evolves  with  it.  He  may  add  a  great  deal 
to  the  common  stock  of  knowledge,  but  the  nature  of  what  he 
adds  is  generally  determined  by  the  needs  of  the  time.  If  then 
we  can  establish  to  what  age  any  individual  man  belongs,  and 
further,  determine  the  leading  preoccupations  of  that  age,  we  can 
know  in  what  sphere  he  must  have  exercised  his  activity.  Nay, 
in  some  cases,  we  may  be  able  to  explain,  at  least  broadly,  the 
purpose  of  little  peculiarities,  which  otherwise  would  either 
remain  for  us  a  sealed  letter,  or  at  best  be  left  to  various  con- 
jectures. There  is  no  reason  why  the  Extraordinary  Points 
should  form  an  exception  to  this  rule.  Hence,  if  we  can  estab- 
lish the  epoch  to  which  these  Points  are  referable,  together  with 
the  mental  preoccupations  then  existing  among  the  Jews,  we 
should  be  able  to  discover  the  aim  that  their  author  or  authors 


Ten  Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  13 

had  in  view  in  appending  them.  To  our  knowledge,  this  argu- 
ment has  not  been  utilized  to  its  full  value  by  any  of  the  authors 
mentioned  heretofore,  although  Blau  has  incidentally  touched 
upon  it.^  Konigsberger,  it  is  true,  starts  with  the  very  suggestive 
proverb,  "Wer  den  Dichter  will  verstehen,  muss  in  Dichters 
Lande  gehen,'^  but  he  gives  us  nothing  beyond  the  vague  and 
questionable  assertion  that  the  Jews  would  not  modify  the  text 
of  the  Bible  which  they  had  received  from  their  fathers.^ 

17.  Akin  to  this  first  line  of  arguments,  are  the  conclusions 
drawn  from  the  palseographical  methods  in  use  at  that  time. 
Owing  to  the  lack  of  Jewish  MSS.  belonging  to  the  period  during 
which  the  Nequdoth  came  into  existence,  we  might  be  inclined  to 
think  that  no  strictly  palseographical  argument  could  be  adduced 
in  connection  with  the  Puncta  Extraordinaria,  If,  however,  we 
bear  in  mind  the  lack  of  originality  among  the  Hebrews  in  so 
many  branches  of  human  activity,  we  are  naturally  led  to  inquire 
whether  we  could  not  trace  the  origin  of  the  Jewish  palseographical 
methods  in  general,  and  of  the  points  in  particular,  to  similar 
practices  among  other  nations  with  which  the  Jews  came  into 
contact. 

Of  all  the  external  influences  through  which  the  Jews  may  be 
supposed  to  have  been  affected  from  the  time  of  Alexander,  that 
of  Alexandria  undoubtedly  ranks  first  and  foremost.  As  points 
were  used  by  the  Alexandrians  for  several  purposes,  the  question 
arises  :  Is  it  lawful  to  attribute  to  the  Jewish  Nequdoth  the  same 
meaning  as  to  these  Greek  dots  ? 

Palaeography,  in  connection  with  the  question  at  issue,  has  not 
been  fully  utilized;  Blau^  has  a  few  references  to  Latin,  and 
Ginsburg^  to  Greek,  palaeography;  but  the  dependence  of  the 
Jewish  Nequdoth  on  the  Latin  and  Greek  dots  is  not  shown. 
Konigsberger,^  although  he  gives  no  reason  for  the  course  he 
adopts,  entirely  sets  aside  any  argument  drawn  from  this  source. 

^JQB,  VI,  562  ff.;  Einl,  116  f. 
^ilfwITK;  pp.  3f. 

^  MU^  p.  8,  n.  1 ;  Einl..,  117,  n.  2.     See,  however,  Lagarde,  MittheUungm,  i, 
19  ff. 
*In<rod,p.  321. 
^MuTK,^.  9f. 


14  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

18.  Another  line  of  evidence  is  found  in  Textual  Criticism. 
Not  indeed  that  in  the  present  question  of  the  Points,  we  should 
investigate  whether  or  not  the  Massoretic  text  is  right,  or  establish 
the  true  original  reading  of  the  pointed  passages ;  our  aim  is  simply 
to  discover  by  means  of  the  ordinary  methods  of  Textual  Criticism, 
the  possible  critical  state  of  these  passages  at  the  time  when  the 
Nequdoth  were  appended,  and  as  a  result  of  this  investigation  to 
arrive  at  some  conclusion  with  regard  to  their  primary  import. 
It  is  true  that  the  value  of  Textual  Criticism  as  a  means  of  reach- 
ing such  a  conclusion  is  repudiated  by  Konigsberger ;  ^  but  since 
the  points  bear  on  the  text,  it  is  probable  that  by  determining 
the  state  of  the  text  at  that  period,  we  may  be  able  to  discover 
what  was  the  nature  of  the  textual  peculiarity  thus  marked  by  the 
Nequdoth,  and  this  can  be  done  only  by  adopting  the  methods  of 
Textual  Criticism. 

Furthermore,  if  these  dots  express  a  critical  judgment, — such  as 
the  discrepancies  between  mss.,  the  doubtfulness  or  the  spurious- 
ness  of  the  dotted  elements, — we  can  reasonably  expect,  by  means 
of  critical  methods,  to  find  traces  of  such  discrepancies,  or  to  dis- 
cover the  reasons  for  which  the  Jews  pronounced  some  words  and 
letters  doubtful  or  spurious. 

We  need  not  dwell  here  on  the  means  used  to  find  out  how  the 
various  recensions  read,  when  the  Nequdoth  originated.  They  are 
the  ordinary  sources  of  Textual  Criticism,  viz.,  the  Samaritan 
Pentateuch,  the  early  versions  made  immediately  or  mediately 
from  the  Hebrew,  the  comparison  of  the  dotted  elements  with  the 
parallel  passages,  the  various  conjectures  based  on  philological, 
lexicographical,  or  grammatical  principles.^  The  Hebrew  mss.  in 
our  possession  can  also  be  used ;  for,  though  it  is  now  the  common 
belief  that  all  our  mss.  are  derived  from  one  prototype,  agreed 
upon  in  the  second  century  A.  d.,^ — which,  if  true,  would  tend  to 

^MuTK,^^.  3,  41. 

*  For  all  these  means,  compare  the  critical  Introductions. 

^  This  view  was  first  propounded  by  Kosenmiiller  in  Hdbuch.  fur  d.  Liter,  der 
Bihl  KHtik  u.  Exeg.  (1797),  i,  247  ;  cp.  also  Preuschen,  ZAW,  ix,  303.  It  is 
found  also  in  the  Preface  to  the  Tauchnitz  stereotyped  edition  of  the  Bible,  1834, 
p.  iv ;  cp.  Stade,  ZA  W,  iv,  302  f .     It  was  defended  by  Lagarde,  Anmerk.  zur 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  15 

show  that  our  mss.  are  seemingly  of  little  value,  in  determining 
the  state  of  the  text  previous  to  that  time, — still  in  many  instances, 
some  of  ours  mss.  reproduce  as  their  textual  readings,  the  variants 
from  our  Textus  receptuSj  as  found  in  the  LXX,  the  Sam,  Pent.,  or 
the  Book  of  Jubilees,  recensions  older  than,  or  as  old  as,  our  present 
recognized  Massoretic  text.  Hence,  either  such  mss.  have  been 
occasionally  corrected  according  to  these  or  similar  recensions,  or 
they  are  directly  derived  from  them,  though  in  the  latter  case,  they 
would  have  been  partly  harmonized  with  the  Textus  receptus,  by 
the  Scribes  and  Correctors.  Whatever  view  we  adopt,  it  remains 
true  that  our  mss.  can  and  should  be  used,  in  determining  the 
state  of  the  text  at  the  time  when  the  Nequdoth  were  introduced. 
19.  Finally,  our  last  and  apparently  most  direct  argument,  is 
derived  from  the  meaning  attributed  to  the  Points  by  the  Jewish 
tradition,  as  preserved  in  Sifre  and  in  various  passages  of  the 
Talmud  and  Midrashim.  It  is  but  natural  to  suppose  that,  since 
the  Jews  appended  the  Points,  the  true  purpose  which  they  had  in 
view  should  have  been  preserved  in  the  records  they  have  left  us  on 
the  subject.  With  reference  to  the  question  under  discussion,  the 
authority  of  these  Jewish  records  is  denied  by  Konigsberger ;  but 
everything  tends  to  show  that  his  view  should  be  rejected.  The 
earlier  Jewish  writings  are  the  reproduction  of  the  oral  lessons 
given  in  the  Jewish  schools  and  academies,  as  is  evident  from  the 
fact  that  the  authority  of  some  Eabbi  or  Rabbis  is  generally  given 
in  connection  with  the  various  decisions  and  opinions.^  If  then 
these  writings,   in  general,   embody  the  literary  activity  of  the 


Griech.  Uebersetz.  d.  Proverhien,  p.  If.;  Materialen  z.  Kritik  u.  Geschichte  d.  Pent.^ 
p.  xii  ;  Mittheilungen,  i,  19  f. ;  Olshausen,  Die  PsalmeUj  p.  17  f. ;  337  f. ;  Noldeke, 
Histoire  Litteraire  de  PA.  T.,  350  ff.  ;  ZWT,  1873,  445-447  ;  Cornill,  Ezechiel, 
5  ff. ;  Eeach,  Sebirin,  p.  1.  The  opposite  view  is  taken  by  Strack  in  Semitic  Studies^ 
pp.  560  ff.;  Text  of  the  0.  T.,  in  Hastings'  I)B.,  iv,  p.  728. 

1  On  these  Jewish  Writings,  see  the  various  Introductions  to  the  Talmud,  such 
as  Strack,  Mielziner  ;  various  articles  in  the  Dictionaries  and  Encyclopaedias, 
ss.  vv.  Midrash,  Mishnah,  Talmud,  Tar  gums,  etc.;  among  these,  Schechter's  article 
^^  Talmud ^^  in  Hastings'  DB,  v,  p.  57  ff.,  deserve  special  mention.  See  also 
the  Literature  on  the  Jewish  schools,  §  27  ;  see  besides,  Stehelin,  Traditions  of  the 
Jews;  Dobschiitz,  Einfache  Exegese  d.  Tannaim;  Schiirer,  Geschichte  d.  Isr.  Volk.y 
II,  323  ff.  ;  330  ff. 


16  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

Kabbis,  and  have  preserved  the  answers  given  to  questions  agi- 
tated in  these  schools,  there  is  no  reason  why  they  should  be  set 
aside,  when  we  speak  of  this  particular  question  of  the  meaning 
of  the  Nequdoth.  The  fact  that  the  Points  are  found  in  the  Syna- 
gogue scrolls,  and  are  mentioned  in  so  many  places  in  Jewish 
literature,  shows  that  a  certain  importance  was  attached  to  them, 
and  consequently,  that  they  are  likely  to  have  been  discussed  in 
the  Rabbinical  Academies.  In  fact  we  also  find  that  the  name  of 
some  Rabbi  is  oftentimes  attached  to  some  one  of  the  explanations, 
V.  g,  R.  Jose  (b.  Chalafta)  M.  Pesachim,  ix,  2  ;  Tosefta  Pesachim, 
VIII,  3;  Baba  Metsia,  87a;  Nazir,  23a;  Horayoth,  10b;  Men., 
87b,  etc.  The  explanations  of  Sifre,  it  is  true,  are  anonymous, 
but  it  is  certainly  very  significant  that  on  two  passages  (Gen. 
xvi,  5,  and  Gen.  xxxiii,  4)  discrepancies  are  mentioned,  which 
clearly  show  that  the  Nequdoth  had  been  duly  taken  up  in  the 
scholastic  discussions  of  the  time.  In  view  of  what  precedes,  we 
can  but  wonder  that  Konigsberger  refuses  to  take  these  Jewish 
documents  into  consideration,  and  depends  solely  on  what  he 
thinks  to  be  the  Massoretic  methods.  It  will  also  be  a  matter 
of  surprise  to  many,  that  he  supposes  two  distinct  and 
independent  traditions  with  regard  to  the  text  of  the  Bible, 
which  traditions  would  have  come  down  to  us  in  two  distinct 
channels :  the  one  Massoretic,  bearing  on  the  text  proper,  and 
the  other,  Talmudic  and  Midrashic,  bearing  on  its  interpretation.^ 
It  is  beyond  all  doubt,  as  will  be  seen  later,  that  from  a  very 
remote  antiquity  we  meet  among  the  Jews  with  some  textual  and 
critical  labors,  which  constitute  the  origin  of  the  Massorah ;  ^  but 
to  assert  that  these  labors  have  left  no  historical  traces  in  the  old 
Halachah  or  Haggadah,^  is  an  assertion  altogether  a  priori.  The 
same  men  who  handed  down  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible,  also 
transmitted  the  various  textual  or  critical  remarks  on  its  text.^ 
It  would  be  incomprehensible  that,  while  interpreting  the  Bible, 

^MuTK,  pp.  4f.  ;  7;  9  f.,  etc. 

^See  lower  down,  §§  27  ff. 

^  On  the  term  '  Haggada '  and  its  meaning,  see  Bacher,  JQR,  iv,  406  ff. ;  Agad. 
d.  Tann.,  i,  451  ff. 

*Blau  justly  remarks  that  the  Midrash  interprets  not  only  the  text,  but  the  text 
with  all  its  Massoretic  rubrics,  MU,  p.  54  ff.;  Einl.,  pp.  120  ff. 


Ten  Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  17 

the  Tannaim  or  Amorraim  had  completely  overlooked  or  mis- 
construed the  various  corrections  that  had  been  made  before  them, 
or  the  peculiarities  which  had  been  already  noticed.  We  have  a 
clear  proof  of  the  contrary,  in  the  fact  that  what  is  called  the 
Massorah  proper,  greatly  depends  on  the  earlier  Jewish  literary 
productions,  as  is  seen,  v.  g.,  from  the  Talmudic  lists  of  textual 
peculiarities  incorporated  into  its  own.^  For  such  rubrics,  and  in 
particular  for  the  Nequdoth  of  the  Pentateuch,  if  we  desire  to 
know  their  true  import  we  must  go  back  to  these  pre-Massoretic 
works.^  We  are  aware  that  there  are  divergencies  between  the 
later  Massorah  and  the  earlier  works,^  but  this  is  not  to  be 
accounted  for  by  the  Massorah's  so-called  independence  of  the 
Talmud,  etc.,  but  should  rather  be  explained  by  the  different 
stages  of  one  and  the  same  tradition,  which  at  one  time  may  have 
been  misunderstood,  changed,  modified,  or  enlarged. 

Even  if  it  were  true — and  it  is  at  least  very  doubtful — that 
the  Massorah  proper  never  passes  a  critical  judgment  against  any 
text-element,  it  should  still  be  shown  that  in  the  earlier  stages  of 
the  Massorah,  the  same  methods  were  already  exclusively  followed. 
The  aim  of  the  Massorah  may  be  to  preserve  the  text,  but  it 
preserves  the  text  with  all  the  peculiarities  which  the  ancients 
had  already  noticed,  and  the  true  import  of  which,  as  already 
stated,  is  known  independently  of  the  Massorah.^  To  reject  the 
data  of  the  Jewish  writings  a  priori^  to  repudiate  their  explana- 
tions without  having  examined  them  sufficiently,  is  to  reject  and 
repudiate  the  best  and  most  direct  evidence  as  to  the  meaning 
of  the  Points,  and  expose  ourselves  to  mere  subjective  and  con- 
jectural conclusions.  Of  course,  we  do  not  intend  to  deny,  that 
in  the  various  Midrashic  works,  there  may  be,  and  probably  are, 
many  irrelevant  amplifications  and  untrustworthy  accounts  with 

^  We  find  many  textual  and  critical  notices  in  the  ancient  Jewish  works ;  see 
Kosenfeld  D^ISID  nnDtr?rD  (Hebrew),  Ch.  ii,  6ff.,  and  especially  Ch.  iii,  9  ff. 

^Cp.  although  with  some  reservation,  Kosenfeld,  o.  c,  Ch.  v,  30  ff.  ;  Ginsburg, 
Introduet.y  308  ff.  ;  and  besides,  the  various  critical  Introductions. 

^See  Eosenfeld,  o.  c,  pp.  15  ff.,  46,  47,  48,  50  ff.;  cp.  also  Strack,  Prolegomena, 
59  ff. 

*Levias,  art.  Masorah,  JE,  viii,  370,  rightly  distinguishes  the  creative  period 
from  the  reproductive  and  the  critical  periods.     Cp.  Harris,  JQR,  i,  128  ff. 

2 


18  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

regard  to  the  Nequdoth;  but  it  is  still  possible  to  trace  these 
amplifications  to  their  source,  and  by  removing  all  later  additions, 
to  determine  what  in  them  is  original  tradition.  The  purely 
Halachic  portions  of  these  writings,  such  as  Sifre,  can  be  fairly 
expected  to  have  preserved  the  true  original  purpose  of  the 
Points. 

We  have  arranged  the  material  at  our  disposal,  in  two  main 
Chapters.  One  Chapter  will  be  devoted  to  evidences  which 
bear  on  the  Nequdoth  as  such,  without  reference  to  the  Biblical 
verses  in  which  they  occur,  or  to  the  letters  over  which  they  are 
placed.  To  this  Chapter  belong  the  circumstances  of  the  time 
during  which  the  Nequdoth  came  into  existence.  Palaeography,  and 
some  Jewish  testimonies  on  the  Points.  In  the  other  Chapter  we 
shall  examine  every  individual  dotted  passage  in  the  light  of 
Textual  Criticism  and  of  the  explanations  given  of  it  in  the  Jew- 
ish literature. 


Ten  Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  19 


CHAPTER  II. 
GENERAL  ARGUMENTS  ON  THE  NEQUDOTH. 


In  this  Chapter,  after  having  determined  the  approximate  age 
of  the  Points,  we  shall  briefly  inquire  into  the  main  preoccupa- 
tions of  that  age  with  regard  to  the  text  of  the  Bible,  and  into 
the  palseographical  influences  undergone  by  the  Jews  during  that 
period.  Then,  we  shall  be  able  to  draw  at  least  a  partial 
conclusion  concerning  the  meaning  of  the  Nequdoth, 

Section  I.    Approximate  age  op  the  Nequdoth, 

20.  Konigsberger  ^  is  inclined  to  refer  the  pointing  of  cer- 
tain letters  to  the  latter  half  of  the  ii  century  A.  D.  In  the 
Biblical  MS.  of  R.  Meir,^  were  found  special  readings,^  which, 
although  it  is  nowhere  intimated,  many  think  to  have  been  mere 
Haggadic  hints  in  the  margin.  Konigsberger  is  induced  by 
these  readings  and  by  the  fact  that  R.  Meir  was  a  scribe  *  and 
that  his  disciple,  R.  Simeon  b.  Eleazar,^  was  the  first  to  give  rules 
for  the  Haggadic  treatment  of  the  Nequdoth^^  to  consider  R.  Meir 
as  the  probable  author  of  the  Points.  This  view  does  not  stand 
the  test  of  accurate  investigation.     That  the  Points  should  be 

2 On  R.  Meir  (ii  cent.  A.  d.),  see  Bacher,  Agad.  d.  Tan.,  ii,  1  ff.  ;  Jost,  Gesch. 
d.  Judenth. ,  ii,  86  ff.  ;  Graetz,  History  of  the  Jews,  ii,  435  ff. 

^  Jer.  Taanith,  i,  1 ;  Bereshith  Rabba,  ix,  5  ;  xx,  12  (29),  end — numbers  vary 
with  the  editions;  xciv,  9  (8).  On  these  readings  see  Znnz,  Gott.  Vortr.,  182; 
Miiller,  Soferim,  p.  86  ;  Bacher,  o.  c,  ii,  p.  10,  n.  2  and  n.  3  ;  Epstein,  in  Monat- 
schnft,  etc.,  1885,  p.  337  f.,  quoted  by  Harris  in  JQR,  i,  135,  n.  1. 

*  Jer.  Megil.,  iv,  1  ;  Sotah,  20a. 

^On  R.  Simeon  b.  Eleazar,  see  Bacher,  Ag.  d.  Tann.,  ii,  422. 

«  Bereshith  Rabba,  XLVin,  15  (17),  etc.     See  lower  down,  §§  57  f. 


20  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

referred  to  a  mucli  earlier  period,  the  following  considerations 
will  show.^ 

21.  At  the  time  of  K.  Meir,  the  Points  are  already  made  the 
basis  of  special  inferences.  In  Menachoth,  87b,  we  find  a  dis- 
cussion between  the  Rabbis  and  the  same  R.  Meir  with  regard 
to  the  Issaron-measures  in  the  temple.  The  Rabbis  derived 
special  conclusions  from  the  Point  on  ]^*1U^J?,  while  R.  Meir 
refused  to  draw  any  consequence  from  it.  If  R.  Meir  had  been  the 
author  of  the  Points,  we  would  naturally  expect  him  to  oppose 
to  the  interpretation  of  the  Rabbis,  the  real  purpose  of  the  Nequdah, 
which  he  himself  would  have  had  in  view  when  pointing  the  word.^ 

22.  Besides,  we  have  already  called  attention  to  the  fact  that 
in  the  iii  century,  the  date  of  the  compilation  of  Sifre,  the  dots, 
as  used  in  connection  with  the  official  text  of  the  Law,  already 
formed  a  well  defined  group ;  hence,  at  that  time,  they  must  have 
been  universally  recognized  as  an  official  feature  of  that  text. 
If  R.  Meir,  or  one  of  his  contemporaries  had  been  the  author 
of  the  Points,  there  is  little  doubt  that  in  the  golden  age  of 
Rabbinical  Scholasticism,  his  interference  with  the  text  would 
have  been  challenged,  and  that  this  recognition  of  the  dots  would 
not  have  been  complete  at  the  time  of  Sifre;  at  any  rate,  the 
name  of  their  author  would  have  been  mentioned  to  justify  their 
being  added  to  the  official  text.  It  is  true  that  on  two  passages, 
viz.  Gen.  xvi,  5,  and  Gen.  xxxiii,  4,  we  find  some  Rabbis  opposed 
to  the  Points ;  but  for  so  doing  they  never  appeal  to  their  recent 
origin,  and  besides,  they  are  clearly  in  opposition  to  the  common 
opinion  of  their  time.  If  the  author  of  the  Nequdoili  had  been 
living  then  or  had  been  known,  his  authority  would  have  been 
adduced  against  R.  Simon  b.  Yochai,  one  of  the  objectors.^ 

^  In  the  private  copies  of  the  Chinese  Jews  of  K'  ae-f ung-Foo,  the  missionaries 
whose  attention  had  been  called  to  certain  passages  of  the  Bible,  verified  the  pres- 
ence of  the  dots  on  Gen.  xxxiii,  4.  These  mss.  are  of  Western  origin  and  belong 
to  the  post-Massoretic  period ;  hence,  nothing  can  be  concluded  in  favor  of  the 
age  or  of  the  universal  reception  of  the  Points.  See  Lettres  Edijiantes,  vol.  24,  p. 
75 ;  Eichom,  EinL,  ii,  577  fE. ;  Michaelis,  Orient,  u.  Exeg.  Biblioth.  Th.  v,  74  fif.; 
Miiller,  Soferim,  p.  88. 

2  See  lower  down,  §  112. 

^See  lower  down,  §  65  and  §§  69,  85.  Instead  of  Simon  b.  Yochai,  many  of 
the  Jewish  Writings  read  Simeon  b.  Eleazar :  see  Appendix,  on  Gen.  xxxiii,  4. 


Ten  Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  21 

Moreover,  many  of  the  explanations  of  the  Points  are  attributed 
to  R.  Jose  b.  Chalafta  (b.  Chonai  ?)  ^  it  cent.  A.  d.  The  Nequdoth 
must  consequently  not  only  have  been  existing  in  his  day,  but 
must  have  been  already  universally  received,  since  he  does  not 
attempt  to  vindicate  their  right  to  existence  and  simply  tries  to 
explain  their  import.  If  so,  we  must  further  allow  a  sufficient 
time  to  elapse  from  their  origin  to  their  general  recognition  by  the 
contemporaries  of  R.  Jose.  This  throws  back  the  origin  of  the 
Nequdoth  to  a  period  evidently  antedating  R.  Meir,  and  would 
strongly  suggest  the  beginning  of  the  second  century,  at  the  latest, 
as  the  epoch  to  which  the  Nequdoth  should  be  referred ;  however, 
other  considerations  force  us  to  assign  them  to  a  still  earlier  date. 

23.  The  Extraordinary  Points  are  found  in  the  Synagogue 
scrolls,  from  which  the  Massoretic  vowel-signs  and  accents  have 
been  sedulously  excluded.  The  Talmud,  in  order  to  safeguard  the 
accuracy  of  the  Synagogue  copies,  enters  into  minute  regulations.^ 
For  instance  : — to  mention  only  a  few  that  are  of  interest  for  our 
present  purpose, — it  was  forbidden  to  write  anything  from  mem- 
ory,^ all  had  to  be  read  before  being  transcribed  ;  ^  nothing  was  to 
be  put  in  the  copy  that  was  not  in  the  original ;  ^  the  scroll,  having 
been  copied,  had  to  be  examined  within  thirty  days  and  every 
mistake  amended ;  ^  from  very  ancient  times,  there  were  official 
correctors  attached  to  the  temple,  whose  mission  it  was  to  control 
the  accuracy  of  copies  by  means  of  the  temple  model  codex ;  ^  if  in 
each  column  there  was  more  than  one  mistake,  or  according  to 
others  three  mistakes,  the  scroll  could  not  be  corrected  but  was 

1  Blau,  JQR,  VI,  562.  Cp.  M.  Pesachim,  ix,  2 ;  Tosefta  Pesachim,  vin,  3  ; 
Baba  IVfetsi  a,  87a  ;  Nazir,  23a  ;  Horayoth,  10b  ;  Menachoth,  87b. 

2  On  these  Talmudic  regulations,  see  Waehner,  Antiq.  Ebr. ,  i.  Sect,  i,  Ch.  xlv  ; 
Adler,  Judaeor.  Cod.  etc. ,  passim ;  Blau,  Studien  z.  althebr.  JBuchvjesen,  180-188; 
Lowe,  Graphisch.  Bequisit.  bei  d.  Juden,  ii,  passim.. 

*This  is  implied  in  Jer.  Megil.  iv,  1. 

*Cp.  M.  Megillah,  ii,  2  ;  Jer.  Megil.,  ii,  2  ;  Baba  Bathra,  15a. 

^Cp.  Sifre  on  Deut.,  §  56,  edit.  Friedmann,  87a;  Sotah,  20a;  cp.  also  Jer. 
Megil.,  I,  11(9). 

«Kethubotli,  19b;  Jer.  Sanh.,  ii,  6. 

''Jer.  Sheqalim,  iv,  2;  Kethuboth,  106a;  cp.  M.  Sanh.,  ii,  4;  Jer.  Sanh.,  ii, 
6;  Blau,  Althebr.  Buchw.,  106  f. 


22  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

rejected.^  These  and  many  other  precautions,  made  it  almost 
impossible  for  any  foreign  element  to  creep  into  the  text.  Need- 
less to  add  that  any  extraordinary  feature  of  the  text  could  much 
less  than  the  ordinary  elements  escape  the  quick  eye  of  the  revi- 
sers ;  for,  owing  to  their  unusual  character,  their  presence  would 
be  more  easily  detected.  Hence,  the  Extraordinary  Points  could 
not  have  been  introduced  into  the  text  of  the  Synagogue  scrolls 
after  this  Talmudic  legislation  had  come  into  use.  Again,  these 
regulations  themselves  suppose  that  before  the  time  of  the  Talmud 
an  official  text  had  been  agreed  upon,  and  that  the  Talmud  simply 
provides  for  its  accurate  transmission.  This  Synagogue  text  is  no 
other  than  the  present  Massoretic  one  or  textus  recephis.  The  date 
of  the  adoption  of  the  present  textus  receptuSy  will  therefore  be  the 
latest  date  assignable  to  the  origin  of  the  points ;  for  they  must 
have  been  in  existence  when  the  text  itself  was  accepted.  Now, 
our  present  Massoretic  text  is  the  one  that  underlies  the  Version 
of  Aquila.^  That  version  was  made  towards  the  middle  of  the 
second  century  A.  d.,  and  hence,  the  Nequdoth  must  have  been 
already  existing  at  that  time ;  we  say  existing  and  not  introduced, 
because,  to  be  allowed  to  stand  in  that  official  text  they  must  have 
had  some  title  to  belong  to  it.  Nor  is  this  an  a  priori  assertion  ; 
for  the  beginning  of  the  second  century  was  precisely  the  period 
that  witnessed  the  origin  and  growth  of  the  tendency  to  consider 
every  little  particle  of  the  text  as  of  divine  origin,  and  as  convey- 
ing a  special  divine  thought.  The  Rabbis  must  have  taken  the 
same  view  of  the  Nequdoth^  and  so,  if  these  points  were  allowed  to 
stay,  it  must  have  been  because  they,  too,  were  supposed  to  have 
a  special  divine  import.  In  its  turn,  this  special  value  attributed 
to  the  dots  supposes  that  the  Jews  of  the  time  took  it  for  granted 
that  they  had  been  placed  by  some  one  especially  commissioned 
by  God  for  that  purpose.  No  contemporary  Rabbi  could  have 
imparted  to  the  Points  such  god-like  significance,  and  so,  we  are 

^  Jer.  Megil.,  i,  11 :  Jer.  Sabbath,  xvi,  1 ;  Menachoth,  29b;  Soferim,  in,  9. 
Cp.  Blau,  0.  c,  p.  187. 

^See  the  various  Critical  Introductions,  and  articles  of  Biblical  Dictionaries. 
See  besides,  Field,  Hexapla,  xvi-xxvii ;  Derenbourg,  PaUsiine^  396,  n.  4  ;  399  ; 
Burkitt,  Aquila,  JQB,  1898,  207  £f. 


Ten  Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  23 

led  to  refer  them  to  a  period  sufficiently  earlier  to  allow  the  veri- 
fication of  the  proverb : 

"Omnia  post  obitum  fingit  majora  vetustas." 

In  view  of  this  fact,  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era  would  be 
the  latest  date  to  which  the  Extraordinary  Points  could  reasonably 
be  assigned. 

24.  The  same  conclusion  is  reached,  if  we  examine  a  tradi- 
tion contained  in  Aboth  de  K.  Nathan  (1  and  2),  reproduced  in 
Bemidbar  Kabba,^  and  in  the  rubric  of  Ochlah  w^Ochlah  intro- 
ducing the  list  of  the  Nequdoth.^  We  read  in  Aboth  de  E. 
Nathan   (1),   n»X^1  ^T^^  KD''  Dhf  i<niy  ION  ip  b6^  (l^pj)  HO^ 

^b  nDit<  nxi  ]rvbv  ^mp:  nnD  )b  ^:^  noifc<^  np  nnnD  hd  n:iDo  ^h 

:  ]n^bv^  nmpJ  nnyt^  n^riD  nD^  ^  Why  (have  points  been  placed)  ? 
Thus  Ezra  thought,  if  Elias  comes  and  says  to  me :  why  hast 
thou  written  thus  ?  I  will  answer  him :  I  have  already  marked 
them  (the  dotted  letters)  with  points ;  but  if  he  says  to  me : 
thou  hast  written  rightly,  then  I  will  remove  the  points  from 
upon  them.'  This  testimony,  it  goes  without  saying,  should  not 
be  taken  literally,  because  we  find  it  expressed  for  the  first 
time  in  the  vi  or  vii  century.  We  know,  besides,  that  the 
Eabbis  often  connect  what  is  obscure  in  point  of  origin,  with 
some  great  name,  such  as  Moses  or  Ezra,  or  with  some  re- 
nowned body  of  men,  such  as  the  Soferim  or  the  men  of  the 
Great  Synagogue.  We  may  well  refuse  to  credit  the  Jewish 
tradition  which  makes  Ezra  the  author  of  the  Points ;  but  if 
so,  their  true  author  is  unknown  to  the  Jews  themselves,  and 
then  we  have  to  face  the  following  problem :  although,  as  early 
as  the  date  of  the  compilation  of  the  Mishnah  (M.  Pesachim, 
IX,  2),  we  find  explanations  of  the  Points,  given  in  the  name  of 
E.  Jose,  nowhere  in  all  the  Jewish  post-Biblical  literature,  do  we 
find  an  allusion  to  their  real  author.  This,  all  will  admit,  is  a 
remarkable  fact ;  for,  the  principal  enactments  and  opinions  of  the 
Eabbis,  scattered  throughout  the  Jewish  Writings,  are  explicitly 

^See  also  lower  down,  §  128. 

^  Frensdorff,  Ochlah  w^  Ochlah,  n.  96.     This  is  not  found  in  the  Massoretic  list 
on  Num.,  in,  39. 


24  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

attributed  to  them  or  to  their  school.  This  is  the  case  even  with 
the  decisions  of  the  older  Tannaim ;  more  than  three  hundred 
points  of  difference  between  the  two  rival  schools  of  Hillel  and 
Shammai,  have  been  preserved  to  us.^  What  could  be  the  cause 
for  the  apparent  neglect  of  the  author  of  the  Nequdoth  in  Jewish 
circles  ?  We  see  only  two  possible  answers  :  either  this  author 
died  long  before  the  composition  of  the  earliest  of  these  literary- 
productions,  and  had,  at  the  time,  fallen  into  oblivion,  or  else  the 
Nequdoth  were  not  considered  of  sufficient  importance  to  attract 
the  attention  of  the  Rabbis  to  their  author.  The  second  alter- 
native is  altogether  inadmissible,  since  as  stated,  the  Nequdoth 
were  admitted  into  the  official  text,  and  also  were  duly -taken  up 
and  discussed  in  the  Academies.  We  are  therefore  forced  to  the 
other  alternative,  viz.  that  when  the  Mishnah  and  the  other 
fragments  of  the  Jewish  literature  came  into  existence,  the  author 
of  the  Points  had  been  already  forgotten.  This  throws  back 
their  origin  probably  to  pre-Christian  times.  Furthermore,  since 
so  many  of  the  sayings  of  the  Tannaim  have  been  preserved  to 
us,  it  is  probable  that  the  author  of  the  Nequdoth  lived  before 
their  time,  and  that  consequently,  the  Points  are  referable  to  that 
dark  period  known  as  the  time  of  the  Soferim  or  of  the  Great 
Synagogue. 

Everything  tends  to  show  that  the  Nequdoth  should  be  ascribed, 
at  the  latest,  to  the  very  dawn  of  the  Christian  era,  and  probably 
to  a  still  more  remote  antiquity. 

25.  Lagarde  makes  the  Points  a  little  more  recent.  He  thinks 
that  they  were  of  accidental  origin,  ordinary  corrections  of  inad- 
vertent errors  made  by  the  copyist  of  the  manuscript  which,  in 
the  second  century  A.  d.,  was  accepted  as  the  standard.^  This 
codex  having  acquired  this  authority,  its  accidental  peculiarities, 
including  the  deletions,  were  scrupulously  reproduced  in  copies 
made  from  it.  Of  course  there  may  have  been  mistakes  in  the 
place  assigned  to  the  dots  in  subsequent  ages. 

^Blau,  EM.  J  115.     See  also  the  various  Eabbis  mentioned  in  Bacher,  Agad.  d. 
Tann.,  i,  where  many  of  their  sayings  are  recorded. 
"Mittheilungen,  i,  19  f. 


Ten  Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch.  25 

26.  This  contention  of  Lagarde  already  supposes  the  question 
relative  to  the  meaning  of  the  Nequdoth  to  have  been  solved ;  if 
the  Points  are  exegetical  signs  no  such  origin  could  be  vindicated. 
Even  granting  for  the  present  that  the  Nequdoth  are  real  deletions, 
it  would  be  hard  to  see  how  their  author  would  have  been  for- 
gotten by  the  Rabbis  of  the  second  century,  who  were  his  con- 
temporaries. Besides,  if  the  Points  were  simple  corrections  of 
inadvertent  errors,  we  should  not  expect  to  find  the  dotted  ele- 
ments in  other  recensions,  v,  g.  in  the  Sam.  Pent,  or  the  Lxx 
version,  for  it  would  hardly  be  likely  that  mere  mistakes  in  tran- 
scription would  correspond  to  the  actual  readings  of  the  above 
recensions.  Now,  it  is  true  that  the  dotted  elements  are  not  found 
in  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  for  Gen.  xvi,  5 ;  Num.  iii,  39  ;  xxi, 
30  ;  but  they  occur  for  Gen.  xviii,  9  ;  xix,  33  ;  xxxiii,  4 ;  xxxvii, 
12 ;  Num.  ix,  10  ;  xxix,  15 ;  Deuter.  xxix,  28.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  Septuagint,  although  omitting  the  dotted  letters  in  Num.  ix, 
10  (?) ;  xxi,  30,  has  preserved  them  in  Num.  iii,  39 ;  xxix,  15  ; 
Deut.  xxix,  28  ;  and  for  some  passages,  owing  to  the  nature  of 
the  pointed  elements,  no  comparison  is  possible,  v,  g.,  Gen.  xvi,  5  ; 
xix,  33  ;  xxxvii,  12.^  Nor  could  it  be  seriously  maintained,  that 
some  scribe,  disregarding  the  Points,  corrected  the  Sam.  Pent,  on 
the  Hebrew  standard  codex  of  the  second  century :  at  least  we 
find  no  ground  to  say  so.  Moreover,  were  this  granted,  it  might 
be  further  asked  why  all  the  pointed  passages  have  not  been 
corrected.  Lagarde  is  certainly  right  in  claiming  that  the  Points 
were  found  in  the  standard  codex,  and  it  is  probably  to  this 
fact  that  they  owe  their  official  character;  but  they  must  have 
existed  before.  We  have  therefore  every  reason  to  think  that 
our  conclusion  should  be  retained.  Consequently,  we  must 
examine  the  mental  activity  of  the  Jews  from  the  time  of  the 
Maccabees  down  to  the  beginning  of  the  second  century  A.  D., 
as  it  is  certainly  to  that  period  that  the  Nequdoth  should  be 
referred. 


^  See  the  individual  passages  in  our  last  chapter. 


26  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 


Section  II.     Mental  Activity  of  the  Jews  Dueing 

THAT  Period.     Influence  of  Alexandria 

OVER  Palestine. 

During  this  period,  two  tendencies  commend  themselves  to  our 
attention  as  likely  to  throw  some  light  on  the  meaning  of  the 
Extraordinary  Points,  viz.  the  Textual  and  Exegetical  preoc- 
cupations. This  twofold  activity,  together  with  the  influence  of 
Alexandria  over  Palestine  at  that  time,  will  form  the  subject 
of  the  following  pages ;  but  the  reader  should  not  expect  here 
a  complete  treatment  of  these  various  points.  Such  a  detailed 
account  would  be  out  of  proportion  with  our  present  work,  and 
besides,  only  for  a  few  of  the  topics  to  be  spoken  of,  is  there  any 
controversy  among  scholars. 

A.     Textual  Preoccupations? 

27.  First  of  all,  we  have  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
Jews  of  this  age  already  noticed  and  duly  registered  many  of 
the  peculiarities  of  the  Biblical  text.  This  assertion  is  a  priori 
probable ;  for,  the  presence  of  numerous  Synagogues,^  in  which 
the  Law  was  read  to  the  people,  as  well  as  of  schools,^  in  which 
the  Bible  was  taught,  must  of  necessity  have  made  the  Rabbis 
alive  to  the  various  peculiarities  of  the  text.  Furthermore,  at 
that  time  we  meet  the  Scribes,^ — men  whose  vocation  it  was  to 

^  On  the  labours  on  the  text  of  the  Bible  during  this  period,  see  in  general,  His- 
iori.es  of  the  Hebrew  Text ;  Introductions  to  Textual  Criticism  of  the  0.  T.  ;  various 
contributions  in  Biblical  Dictionaries  and  Encyclopedias,  ss.  xm.  Massorah,  Talmud^ 
Hebrew  Text,  etc.  See  besides,  Harris,  JQB,  1889,  128  fl.  ;  223  ff.  ;  Ginsburg, 
Introd.f  passim. 

^On  Synagogues,  see  in  general.  Treatises  of  Archceology,  such  as  Benzinger, 
Nowack  ;  Jewish  Histories,  such  as  Graetz,  Jost,  etc.  ;  articles  in  Dictionaries, 
especially  Bacher,  Synagogue,  in  Hastings,  DB.  See  also  Schiirer,  Gesch.  d.  Jud. 
Volk. ,  iij  427  ff.  ;  Bousset,  Religion  d.  Judent. ,  149  ff. 

'  On  Schools,  see  in  general,  works  on  Jewish  education,  such  as  Marcus,  Simon, 
Lewit,  etc.  ;  see  also  Schiirer,  o.  c,  ii,  422  ff.  ;  Edersheim,  Life  of  Jesus,  i,  228  ff. ; 
Bousset,  0.  c,  159  f. 

*  On  the  Scribes,  see  Schiirer,  o.  c,  n,  305  ff.  ;  312  ff.  ;  Bousset,  o.  c,  139  ff.,  etc. 


Ten  Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  27 

study  the  Bible  in  all  its  details,  in  order  to  explain  it  to  the 
people ;  it  would  be  incredible  that  with  such  a  continual  study  of 
the  sacred  text,  its  various  peculiarities  should  have  escaped  them. 

28.  We  have  besides,  positive  data  to  show  that  many  little 
details  of  the  text  were  actually  noticed  :  not  only  did  the  Soferim 
number  the  verses  of  the  Pentateuch,  but  they  knew  which  was 
the  middle  verse,  the  middle  word  and  the  middle  letter  of  each 
of  the  five  Books  of  the  Law ;  ^  they  counted  how  many  words 
or  letters  were  contained  in  some  sections ;  ^  how  many  times  a 
given  word  occurred  in  some  Biblical  passage,^  etc.  This  practice 
must  have  been  rather  common,  for  the  very  name  of  "  Soferim  " 
is  supposed — although  wrongly — to  have  been  given  to  the  Scribes, 
because  they  numbered  the  elements  of  the  Bible.^ 

29.  Again,  we  find  that  parallel  passages  were  compared  with 
one  another,  as  is  evident  from  the  rules  of  Hillel  based  mainly 
on  the  similarity  or  dissimilarity  of  parallel  passages.^  To  the 
same  end,  we  can  appeal  to  the  Sam.  Pentateuch,  the  Septuagint 
version  and  other  recensions,  to  show  that  parallel  passages  were 
not  only  compared,  but  oftentimes  actually  harmonized,  and  that 
from  this  desire  of  harmonizing,  many  changes  have  been  intro- 
duced into  the  Biblical  text.^ 

30.  In  the  critical  sphere,  we  have  to  note  that  during  this 
period  collections  of  the  Sacred  Books  were  made  at  different 
times,^  under  Ezra,^  Nehemiah,^  Judas  Maccabee ;  ^^  and  as  the 

^  Qidd.  30a.  On  this  and  the  following  points,  see  especially,  Dobschiitz,  Ein- 
faehe  Exegese  d.  Tannaim,  p.  36  ff. 

^  Sifre  on  Numb.,  §  84,  ed.  Friedmann,  p.  22a ;  Sab.  115b,  end. 

^  Sifre  on  Deuteron. ,  §  337,  ed.  Friedmann,  p.  141a ;  M.  Kerithoth,  i,  1  ;  Sab- 
bath, 49b. 

*  Qidd.  30a.     Cp.  Ginsburg,  Introd. ,  pp.  69  f . ;  Konig. ,  Einl. ,  p.  35. 
^  See  lower  down,  §  40. 

*  See  the  various  Critical  Introductions. 

'  The  gathering  of  sacred,  or  at  least  of  highly  valued  Books,  was  common  to  all 
nations  :  thus,  we  find  a  collection  of  Sacred  Books  in  the  temple  of  the  Ammon- 
ites (Euseb.,  Praeparatio  Evangelica,  i,  9,  end)  ;  something  similar  is  met  with  in 
Sparta  (Herod,  vi,  57) ;  in  Athens  (Herod,  v,  90)  etc.  Cp.  Trochon,  Introduct., 
I,  104f. 

8  Cp.  Ezra,  vii ;  4  Ezra,  xiv,  24-26,  37-44. 

»  2  Mace.  II,  13. 

1^2  Mace,  u,  14.     Cp.  1  Mac.  i,  59  f.  ;  iii,  48 ;  Joseph.,  Ant.,  xii,  v.  4. 


28  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

existing  collections  were  most  probably — although  it  is  not 
directly  attested — scattered  by  Pompey/  Quintilius  Varus,^  Titus,^ 
and  Hadrian,  we  are  led  to  suppose  that  on  these  occasions  also 
the  Sacred  Books  had  to  be  gathered  and  welded  anew  into  a 
whole.  The  collections  being  made,  copies  had  to  be  multiplied 
not  only  to  answer  the  needs  of  the  Synagogues  and  schools 
which  were  ever  increasing  in  number,  but  also  to  nourish  and 
foster  the  piety  of  individual  Jews.^ 

31.  From  these  successive  destructions  and  rearrangements 
of  the  Sacred  collections,  as  well  as  from  the  constant  recopying 
of  the  Text,  there  resulted  almost  necessarily  various  mistakes, 
which  more  or  less  disfigured  the  divine  pages.  Whatever  may 
have  been  the  character  of  such  mistakes,  whether  purely  acci- 
dental,^ or  partly  intentional,^  or  even  entirely  and  positively 
designed,^  it  is  beyond  doubt  that  several  recensions  came  into 
existence  at  that  early  period.  This  is  evidenced  by  the  Sam. 
Pentateuch,  the  Septuagint  Version,  the  Book  of  Jubilees,^  the 
Peshitto,  the  Nash  papyrus,^  and  also  by  the  discrepancies  between 
the  present  Massoretic  text  and  the  one  occasionally  supposed  by 
the  Mishnah,^*^  the  Gemarah,^^  and  the  other  ancient  Jewish  works.^^ 

^On  Pompey,  see  Joseph,  Ant,  xiv,  iii  and  iv  ;  Wars,  i,  vi  and  vii ;  C.  App.j 
1,7. 

''Joseph.,  Ant,  xvii,  x,  9-10,  xi,  1  ;  Wars,  ii,  v,  1-3 ;  C.  App.,  i,  7. 

^Joseph.,  Wars,  vii,  v,  5-7;  Life,  §  75.  On  the  arch  of  Titus,  a  man  is 
depicted  carrying  on  his  back  a  long  roll,  undoubtedly  a  Torah  scroll  of  the 
Temple.     Cp.  Joseph.,  I.  c. 

*  As  early  as  the  time  of  Judas  Maccabee,  copies  of  the  Law  were  found  in  many 
Jewish  households,  1  Mac,  i,  59  f.  After  the  triumph  of  the  Jews,  they  must 
have  been  greatly  multiplied. 

^  On  these  and  the  following  points,  see  the  various  Critical  Introductions ;  vari- 
ous articles  in  Dictionaries,  etc.  To  this  first  class  belong  mistakes  arising  from 
transliteration,  homoeoteleuton,  homoeophoneton,  wrong  divisions  of  words, 
wrong  reconstruction  of  abbreviated  words,  etc. 

^  Such  as  grammatical  and  orthographical  changes,  etc. 

'  Here  probably  belong  changes  made  to  safeguard  the  tetragrammaton,  to  re- 
move indelicate  expressions,  etc.  ;  perhaps  also  the  Tiqqun  Soferim. 

^  See  especially,  Ronsch,  Jvbilden,  pp.  196  ff. 

9  Exodus,  XX,  2ff,     Cp.  Cook,  PSBA,  1903,  34  ff. 

^'^  Strack,  Prolegomena,  94  f . 

^^  Strack,  Prolegomena,  96  ff. 

12  B.  Pick,  ZA  W,  1886,  23  ff.  ;  101  ff.  The  results  of  this  investigation  are  not 
always  safe,  see  the  criticism  of  it  by  Derenbourg,  ZA  W,  1887,  91  ff. 


Ten  Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  29 

32.  The  existence  of  these  divergencies  must  have  greatly 
perplexed  the  Jews  when  they  had  to  form  new  collections,  or 
when  they  attempted  to  interpret  the  text.  It  is  not  surprising 
therefore  to  find  that  serious — although  for  a  long  time  unsuccess- 
ful— efforts  seem  to  have  been  made  to  introduce  uniformity  into 
the  text.  We  meet  with  official  correctors  whose  duty  it  was  to 
revise  and  correct  the  Biblical  scrolls ;  ^  we  hear  that  in  the  temple 
there  was  a  standard  codex,  according  to  which  not  only  the  king's 
copy  ^  but  apparently  other  copies  likewise  had  to  be  amended.^ 
The  letter  of  Aristeas  supposes  also  a  model  codex  to  have  existed 
in  Jerusalem  at  the  time  of  the  Septuagint  translation  of  the 
Pentateuch.*  The  practice  is  even  traced  back  to  Moses  who  is 
said  to  have  written  thirteen  rolls,  twelve  for  the  twelve  tribes  and 
one  for  the  Levites,  so  that  should  any  mistake  creep  into  the  tribal 
copies  they  could  be  corrected  according  to  the  levitical  one.^  Some 
besides,  understand  the  model  codex  of  the  temple  '  rn\V  ^DD ' 
to  be  the  copy  of  Ezra  ^  N^llJ? '  ^  which  is  also  spelled  ^  rn]]jJ  '^  At  a 
later  date,  in  Talmudic  and  Massoretic  times,  we  find  the  custom  of 
repairing  to  some  renowned  copy  commonly  adopted.^  Hence, 
although  the  testimony  of  Philo  ^  and  Josephus  ^^  that  the  Jews  had 
not  changed  one  single  letter  of  the  Sacred  Books,  is  objectively 
false,  it  supposes  at  least  that  in  their  respective  times,  pains  were 

*  Kethuboth,  106a.  See  besides,  the  regulations  for  the  copying  of  scrolls,  men- 
tioned above,  §  23  ;  see  also  Harris,  JQB.^  1889,  p.  131  ;  Blau,  Althebr,  Buchw., 
p.  187. 

2  Tosefta  Sanhedrin,  iv,  7,  edit.  Zuckermandel,  p.  421  ;  Sanh.  21b ;  Sifre  on 
Deuteron.,  §  160,  edit.  Friedmann,  105b;  Jer.  Sanh.,  ii,  6. 

'Kethuboth,  19b.     Cp.  Harris,  o.  c,  p.  131 ;  Blau,  o.  c,  pp.  107,  187. 

*In  Swete,  IntroducL,  p.  525  (top).     Cp.  Blau,  o.  c,  100  f. 

"Debarim  Kabba,  ix,  9  (4).     Cp.  Blau,  o.  c,  p.  98. 

^Cp.  Sifre  on  Deuteron.,  §  160,  and  the  remarks  of  Friedmann,  ibid.,  n.  6; 
El.  Levita,  Massoreth  ha-  Massoreth,  edit.  Ginsburg,  p.  106  ;  Blau,  Althebr.  Buchw., 
107  fE. 

^Cp.  Blau,  0.  c,  p.  107,  n.  3. 

^  On  these  model  codices,  see  Strack,  Prolegomena,  pp.  14-19  ;  Neubauer,  in 
Studia  Bihlica,  ill,  22  ff.  ;  Ginsburg,  IntroducL,  409  ff.,  429-443.  In  his  Massorah 
Compiled,  etc.,  Ginsburg  has  collected  the  variants  from  Cod.  Hilleli,  ni,  106-134, 
and  of  Cod.  Jericho.,  135. 

^Quoted  from  his  lost  works  in  Eusebius'  Praeparatio  Evangdica,  vni,  6  (end). 

^^Cont.  Apion.,  i,  8. 


30  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

already  taken  to  guard  the  text  against  every  kind  of  depravation. 
It  must  have  been  also  in  conformity  with  the  spirit  of  the  times, 
that,  according  to  the  letter  of  Aristeas  (ii  cent.  b.  c),  the  Jews 
of  Alexandria  invoked  curses  upon  any  one  that  would  dare  add 
to,  modify,  or  mutilate  the  text  of  the  newly  made  Greek  version 
of  the  Law ;  ^  and  it  is  not  assuming  too  much  to  assert  that  some 
similar  respect  for  the  purity  of  the  text  existed  also  among  the 
Palestinian  Jews. 

33.  What  principles  were  followed  in  determining  the  respec- 
tive value  of  the  various  readings,  we  learn  from  the  ancient 
Jewish  tradition.  We  are  told  that  in  the  temple  were  found 
three  codices,  one  of  which  read  )1j;d  and  the  other  two  HJIJ^D, 
and  that  the  former  was  corrected  according  to  the  two  latter,  etc.^ 
To  follow  the  majority  of  Mss.  as  a  guide  in  Biblical  Criticism, 
may  be  a  very  defective  method,  but  here  we  have  not  to  judge 
of  the  work  done;  it  is  enough  for  our  purpose  to  know  that 
such  preoccupations  existed  when  the  Nequdoth  originated. 

34.  It  would  also  be  very  desirable  to  know  what  critical 
signs,  if  any,  these  ancient  Jews  used  as  symbols  of  their  doubts 
and  critical  judgments.  But  very  little  is  certain  either  about 
the  age  of  the  various  features  of  our  Massoretic  text  or  about 
their  import.  We  may  however  derive  some  information  from 
Alexandria,  which,  during  the  period  under  consideration,  was 
the  great  center  of  literary  activity.^  There,  all  branches  of 
science  flourished,  and  from  there,  a  great  literary  influence  made 
itself  felt  in  neighboring  lands.  The  collections  of  literary  works 
in  the  large  libraries  of  Alexandria  were  enormous  for  the  times, 
and  the  diffusion  of  Greek  culture  and  literature  was  one  of  the 
principal  aims  of  the  Ptolemies.  In  the  course  of  time,  owing 
to  various  causes,  such  as  constant  recopying,  insertion  into  the 

^In  Swete's  IntroducL,  p.  572. 

^Sifre  on  Deuteron.,  §  356,  edit.  Friedmann,  148b  (top)  ;  Jer.  Taanith,  iv,  2  ; 
Aboth  de  K.  Nathan  (1st  rec.  Ch.  34 ;  2d.  Ch.  46)  ;  Soferim,  vi,  4.  See  Blau, 
Althebr.  Buchw.,  101  ff. 

^  On  Alexandria  and  its  literary  activity,  see  Diihne,  Geschichtliche  Darstellung  d. 
Jud.-Alezandrin.  Meligions-Philosophie,  1-27  ;  Matter,  V Ecole  d^ Alexandrie,  passim; 
Grafenhan,  Klassische  Philologie,  etc. 


len  Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch.  31 

text  of  marginal  explanatory  notes,  etc.,  the  text  of  the  classics 
became  very  corrupt.^  Consequently,  the  Alexandrians  soon 
realized  the  necessity  of  issuing  critical  and  revised  editions  of 
the  classics.  Such  editions — to  mention  only  a  few  that  referred 
to  Homer — were  given  out  by  Zenodotus  (iii  cent.  B.  c),  Aristo- 
phanes of  Byzantium  (iii  cent.  b.  c),  Aristarchus  (ii  cent.  B.  c), 
Aristonicus  (i  cent.  B.  c),  Didymus  (i  cent.  A.  D.).^  As  it  would 
have  been  inelegant  and  even  impossible  to  put  all  the  corrections 
or  annotations  in  full  in  the  margins,  a  whole  series  of  conven- 
tional signs, — many  of  which  we  still  possess, — was  adopted  to' 
mark  the  various  peculiarities,  critical  and  exegetical,  which  the 
Alexandrian  critics  had  observed  in  the  text.^ 

35.  Whether  or  not  the  Palestinian  Jews,  when  engaged  in 
the  work  of  correction  and  revision  of  the  Bible,  occasionally 
adopted  the  same  conventional  signs,  is  precisely  the  point  at  issue. 
We  know  enough,  however,  of  the  relations  of  the  Jews  with 
Alexandria,^  to  make  it  certain  that  they  must  have  been  acquainted 
with  the  Greek  methods,  and  to  make  it  at  least  probable  that  in 
some  cases  they  must  actually  have  borrowed  their  critical  signs. 
We  know  that  the  Jews  of  Alexandria  were  very  numerous,  and 
that  they  entered  all  the  professions  available.  Among  them  we 
find  not  only  merchants,  bankers,  etc.,  but  also  literary  men,  such 
as  Aristobulus,  Eupolemus,  Artapanus,  Demetrius,  Aristeas,  Jason, 
Philo  the  Elder,  Ezechiel,  Philo,  etc.^ 

iBlass,  in  Vol.  i  of  Miiller's  Hdbch.  d.  Klass.  Altert,  252-269. 

2  For  all  these,  see  Pierron,  V  Iliade  d'Hoin^re,  i,  pp.  xxix  £E. 

'  Gardthausen,  Griech.  Palaeographie,  288  f.  ;  Pierron,  V  Iliade  d^  Hom^re,  ii,  App. 
II,  522-533.  The  knowledge  of  these  signs  became  a  new  branch  of  study  and 
treatises  were  written  on  them,  v.  g.  by  Hephestion,  Philoxenus,  etc.  (see  Matter, 
0.  c,  III,  p.  126). 

*0n  these  relations  see  in  general  Jewish  Histories,  such  as  Graetz,  vol.  ii, 
passim;  see  also  Dahne,  Geschichtliche  Darstellung,  etc.,  28  ff.  ;  Frankel,  Paldstin. 
Exegese,  etc.,  pp.  1-4  ;  Siegfried,  Philo,  1-31 ;  Bousset,  Ed.  d.  Judent.,  57  ff., 
405  ff.  ;  Schiirer,  Alexandria  (Ancient) ,  in  JE,  vol.  i,  361  ff. 

^On  these,  see  Schiirer,  Geschichte,  ni,  304  ff.  ;  Christ,  Gesch.  d.  Griech.  Lit, 
in  Miiller's  Hdbch.  d.  Klass.  Altert.,  vii,  543  f.  ;  Schiisz,  Palestin.  Geisiesrichtung, 
20  ff.  ;  On  Aristobulus,  see  especially  Joel,  Blieke  in  d.  Peligionsgeschichte,  etc.,  i, 
79-100.  Many  fragments  of  these  authors  have  been  reproduced  in  Muller,  Frag- 
menta  Hist.  Graeca,  ni,  207-230. 


32  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

36,  The  Hellenistic  Jews  must  have  been  well  acquainted 
with  the  palaeographical  methods  which  were  used  before  their 
very  eyes  in  Alexandria.  On  the  other  hand,  Palestine  itself 
at  that  period,  underwent  a  strong  hellenizing  process.  Greek 
ideals  and  methods  were  rapidly  gaining  ground  in  Palestine  up  to 
the  time  of  the  Maccabees.^  At  that  time  it  is  true,  a  reaction  set 
in,  but  it  still  differed  widely  from  the  subsequent  Pharisaic 
exclusivism,  and  apparently  was  not  aimed  at  Alexandria.  The 
relations  between  the  Alexandrian  and  Palestinian  Jews  were 
never  broken,  the  spiritual  supremacy  of  Jerusalem  was  never 
denied.^  At  the  time  of  the  great  festivals,  especially  the  Passover, 
the  Jews  used  to  flock  to  the  Holy  City  from  all  parts  of  the 
world,  but  chiefly  from  the  Egyptian  metropolis.^  It  is  then 
beyond  doubt  that  the  various  customs  of  the  different  nations 
were  familiar  to  the  Jews  of  Palestine.  Again,  although  it  cannot 
be  said  that  Greek  was  extensively  spoken  among  the  common 
people  of  Palestine,  still  its  use  was  current  among  the  educated 
classes  and  it  was  taught  in  many  schools.*  If  so,  the  Greek  mss. 
used  for  teaching  and  learning,  must,  if  nothing  else,  have  made 
the  literary  Jews  acquainted  with  the  Greek  graphical  methods 
of  the  time. 

We  have  therefore  ample  grounds  to  think  that  the  Palestinian 
Jews  were  familiar  with  the  Alexandrian  critical  or  exegetical 
signs,  and  hence,  it  is  at  least  probable  that  they  themselves 
occasionally  used  them.  Let  us,  however,  point  out  some  resem- 
blances between  the  two  methods  of  writing,  tending  to  show  that 
the  Palestinian  Jews  actually  depended  on  Alexandria  for  the 
various  graphical  peculiarities.^ 

^See  Schiirer,  Geschichte,  etc.,  i,  187  ff.,  ii,  42-67;  Edersheim,  Life  of  Jesus, 
vol.  II,  App.  IV. 

^Cp.  Josephus,  Cont.  Ap.,  i,  7 ;  Neg.,  xiv,  13  ;  Nid.  69b. 

^  As  indicative  of  the  crowds  in  Jerusalem  on  those  occasions,  see  Joseph. ,  WarSy 
II,  xiv,  3  ;  VI,  ix,  3  ;  see  also,  concerning  the  Synagogue  of  the  Alexandrians  in 
Jerusalem,  Acts,  vi,  9  ;  Jer.  Megil.,  iii,  1.     Cp.  Schiirer,  GescMchL  ii,  p.  65. 

*  On  the  use  of  Greek  in  Palestine,  see  Joel,  Blicke  in  d.  Beligionsgeschichte,  i, 
6-42  ;  Neubauer,  in  Studia  Biblica,  i,  42  ;  Schiirer,  Geschichte,  ii,  63  £f.  ;  Dalman, 
Die  Worte  Jesu,  1-10  ;  see  also  works  on  Jewish  Education. 

^On  the  following  similarities,  we  have  used,  on  the  side  of  the  Greeks, 
especially  Birt,    Das  Antike  Buchwesen ;    Gardthausen,    Griech.   Palaeographie ; 


Extraordinary  Pohits  of  tJie  Pentateuch,  33 

37.  We  may  call  attention  to  the  similarity  of  the  material 
used  for  writing  both  by  Greeks  and  Jews,  such  as  waxen 
tablets,  leather,  parchment,  papyrus ;  to  the  similarity  of  the 
book  form,  viz.  the  roll ;  and  to  the  similar  disposition  of 
the  text,  viz.  into  columns  separated  by  blank  spaces.  The 
Greek  line  is  based  on  the  poetical  eVo?,^  and  the  same  is 
probably  also  true  of  the  Hebrew  line  with  regard  to  the 
poetical  pIDD.^  In  the  same  way,  we  find  both  Alexandrians 
and  Jew^s^  making  use  of  Abbreviations,'*  of  Numerical 
Letters,^  with  special  and  common  signs  to  distinguish  them 
from  the  ordinary  letters  of  the  text.^  The  Greeks  divided  the 
text  into  Paragraphs,  and  occasionally  left  a  blank  space  between 
them;^  to  these  Paragraphs  correspond  the  Jewish  Parashahs, 
also  marked  with  blank  spaces.^  The  further  division  of  the 
Paragraph  into  Sentences,  among  the  Alexandrians,^  is  also  a 


Thompson,  Hdbook  of  Greek  and  Latin  Palceography ;  Blass,  in  Miiller's  Hdbch., 
etc.,  I,  299  ff.  On  the  side  of  the  Jews,  we  have  consulted  Waehner,  Antiq. 
Ebraeor.  ;  Low,  Graphische  Requisiten  bei  d.  Juden ;  Blau,  AUhebr.  Buchw. ;  also 
Introductions  to  the  O.  T.,  etc. 

^Thompson,  Hdb.,  p.  79  ;  Blass,  o.  c,  pp.  340  £F.  ;  Kendel  Harris,  Sfichometry, 
AJP,  IV,  139  ff. 

2  Blau,  Althebr.  Buchw.,  129  ff. 

'  Whether  the  Jews  used  the  Scriptio  continua  like  the  Greeks,  is  doubtful.  In 
general,  see  Critical  Introductions  where  mistakes  are  pointed  out,  arising  from 
wrong  division  of  words  ;  compare  however,  Perles,  Analekten,  35  ff.  In  Talmudic 
times,  it  had  been  generally  given  up  :  see  Harris,  JQR,  1889,  p.  224. 

*  On  Abbreviations  among  the  Greeks,  see  Gardthausen,  Palaeog. ,  243  ff.  ; 
Thompson,  Hdb.,  88  ff.  ;  among  the  Jews,  various  Introductions,  v.  g.  Ginsburg, 
Intr.,  165  ff.  ;  see  also  Low,  Graph.  Bequisit.,  ii,  49  ff.  ;  Perles,  AnalekL,  4  ff. 

^See  examples  in  Birt,  o.  c,  186  ff.  ;  cp.  Thompson,  Hdb.,  104  ff.  On  the 
probable  use  of  numerical  letters  even  in  the  Bible,  see  Davidson,  art.  Chronicles, 
in  Kitto's  CBL,  i,  505  ;  Konig,  Einl,  74,  90,  274. 

^For  the  Greeks,  see  lower  down,  §§48ff.  ;  for  the  same  signs  among  the  Jews, 
cp.  Levias,  Grammar  of  the  Aram.  Idiom,  p.  5  and  n.  3. 

■^  Gardthausen,  Palaeog. ,  273  ff .  ;  Thompson,  Hdb. ,  68  f . 

^See  Waehner,  Antiq.  Ebraeor.,  Sect.  I,  §§  339  ff.  ;  Pick,  in  Hebraica,  i,  159  ; 
Ginsburg,  Int. ,  9  ff. ;  Konig,  Einl. ,  463  f .  These  Sections  are  divided  into  '  *  closed  " 
and  "open,"  for  the  explanation  of  which  see  the  works  just  referred  to;  they 
should  not  be  confounded  either  with  the  weekly  lessons,  or  with  the  Christian 
Chapters. 

9  Thompson,  Hdh.,  69. 


34  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

contemporaneous  Jewish  practice/  though  the  double  point  (:) 
used  by  the  former  to  mark  the  end  of  a  sentence,^  does  not  seem 
to  have  been  adopted  by  the  Jews  at  that  early  date.^  It  is  also 
worthy  of  notice,  to  find  that  later  on,  the  Jews  borrowed  from 
the  Greeks  the  various  punctuation  marks  and  musical  accents ;  ^ 
for  though  this  practice  does  not  belong  to  the  age  of  the  Nequdoih, 
it  bears  testimony  to  the  fact  that  the  Jews  would  naturally  turn 
to  the  Greeks  for  graphical  signs  and  methods. 

Finally,  we  find  both  among  Greeks  and  Jews  the  custom  of 
counting  the  various  elements  of  their  works.  This  practice, 
known  as  Stic  home  try, — from  the  fact  that  verses  were  counted 
more  generally  than  the  other  elements  of  the  text,  though 
columns,  words  and  letters  were  also  counted,^ — is  found  among 
the  Greeks  l(^ng  before  the  time  of  Christ,^  and  its  introduction 
into  Jewish  palaeography  belongs  to  our  period.''  Here  again  we 
must  remark  that  the  Jewish  unit  for  counting,  seems,  like  the 
Greek,  to  have  considerably  varied,  and  that  among  both  we  meet 
with  a  great  uncertainty  as  to  the  numbers  appended  to  the  books, 
for  the  cTTi'XpL  ^  and  for  the  D^iplDD.^ 

»See  Waehner,  o.  c,  Sect.  I,  §§  180  ff.  ;  Hupfeld,  TSK,  1837,  pp.  849  ff.  ;  Gins- 
burg,  Int.,  69  ff.  :  Konig,  Einl,  463 ff. 

'Thompson,  Hdb.,  69. 

'  Hupfeld,  I.  c,  852  f.  The  double  point  is  found  among  the  Samaritans  ( Peter- 
mann,  Ling.  Sam.  Gramm.,  p.  6).  It  occurs  also  in  some  Synagogue  scrolls 
(Konig,  Einl.,  463  ;  Strack,  Text  of  the  0.  T.,  in  Hastings'  BB.  iv,  727,  col.  2  ; 
Chwolson,  CIH,  221). 

*See  Thompson,  Hdb.,  72;  Gardthausen,  Palaeog.,  274.  On  the  Hebrew 
Accents,  see  the  two  treatises  of  Wickes  on  Hebrew  Accentuation  ;  Biichler,  jHe?-- 
kunft,  etc.  ;  especially  Praetorius,  Herkunft  d.  Hebr.  Ace.  ;  Praetorius  has  been 
opposed  by  Gregory,  quoted  by  Kittel  in  Notwendigkeit  u.  Moglichkeit  einer  Neuen 
Ausgabe  d.  Hebr.  Bibel,  p.  80  ;  cp.  also  Margolis,  Accents  in  Hebreu\  JE,  i,  149  ; 
Cohen,  Cantillation,  JE,  in,  537. 

^Gardthausen,  Palaeogr.,  127  f. 

«Birt,  0.  c,  162  ff.,  186  ff.  ;  Gardthausen,  o.  c,  127 ;  Kendel  Harris,  AJP,  iv, 
133  ff.,  309  ff.  ;  Thompson,  Hdb.,  78  ff. 

^Cp.  Ginsburg,  Intr.,  69  ff.  ;  Kittel,  Notwendigkeit,  etc.,  72  ff.  ;  Josephus,  Ant. 
XX,  XI,  3. 

®  Thompson,  o.  c. ,  81 ;  Blass,  o.  c. ,  341  ;  Serruys,  Anastasiana,  in  Melanges 
d'Arch^ologie,  etc.,  xxii,  157  ff. 

» Ginsburg,  Mr.,  84,  87  ff.  ;  Rosenfeld,  D^'ISID  nnD;j??D,  54 f. 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  35 

B.    Exegetical  Preoccupations, 

38,  At  that  time,  the  Greek  classics  were  extensively  com- 
mented upon  by  the  Alexandrians.  The  editions  contained  not 
only  critical  but  also  exegetical  annotations,  which  were  occasion- 
ally enlarged  into  real  commentaries.  These  were  sometimes 
written  in  separate  volumes,  with  special  signs  in  the  text  itself 
referring  the  reader  to  the  corresponding  place  in  the  commentary.^ 
As  said  above,  there  were  besides,  conventional  signs  to  represent 
graphically  the  various  critical  and  exegetical  peculiarities. 

39,  The  Alexandrian  Jews,  as  might  be  expected,  did  for 
their  national  literature  what  was  done  by  the  Greeks  for  theirs. 
They  were  besides,  great  admirers  both  of  Greek  philosophy  and 
of  the  Bible,  and  hence  strong  eiforts  were  made  to  harmonize  the 
two.  They  endeavoured  to  show  that  all  that  is  reasonable  in  the 
former,  had  been  borrowed  from,  or  at  least  was  to  be  found  in, 
the  latter.  In  order  to  attain  this  result  more  easily,  they  had 
recourse  to  the  allegorical  method  of  interpretation.  Philo  ^  (20 
B.  C.-40  A.  D.)  although  not  the  founder  of  this  method,^ — 
signs  of  it  are  found  already  in  the  writings  of  Aristobulus  (ii 
cent.  B.  c),  and  in  the  letter  of  Aristeas, — systematized  it,  and 
went  much  beyond  his  predecessors  in  the  application  he  made  of 
it.  He  says  that  since  God  is  the  author  of  the  Scripture,  even 
of  the  Septuagint  immediately  as  a  Version,  nothing  is  useless  ; 
every  word,  particle,  expression,  unusual  turn  of  a  phrase,  is  suffi- 
cient ground  to  assert  that  this  striking  feature  was  designed,  and 
consequently  to  make  it  the  basis  of  an  allegorical  interpretation.^ 

40,  Among  the  Palestinian  Jews  we  meet  with  a  similar  evolu- 
tion.    When  the  Sadducees  attacked  the  value  of  the  oral  laws 


^See  Pierron,  V  Iliade  d'Homere,  i,  p.  xxxvi. 

2  On  Philo,  compare  Jewish  Histories,  etc.  See  especially  Gfrorer,  PhUo,  i, 
1  ff.  ;  Diihne,  Jud.-Alexandr.  Belig.-Philosophie,  i,  98  ff.  ;  Frankel,  Schriftforsch. , 
25-43  ;  Siegfried,  Philo,  168  ff.  ;  Edersheim,  Life  of  Jesus,  i,  31  ff.,  40  ff.  ; 
Schiirer,  Geschichte,  iii,  487  ff.  ;  Bousset,  Religion  d.  JudenL,  411  ff. 

^Gforer,  o.  c,  i,  68-113;  Davidson,  Sacred  Hermeneutics,  57  ff.  ;  Siegfried, 
Philo,  168-197  ;  Edersheim,  Life  of  Jesus,  i,  31  ff.  ;  Schiirer,  Geschichte,  iii,  548. 

'^Gforer,  o.  c,  i,  54  ff.,  68 ff.  ;  Davidson,  o.  c,  63  f.;  Siegfried,  I.  c;  Edersheim, 
0.  c,  I,  40  ff. 


36  '  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

and  decisions,  and  denounced  them  as  innovations,  an  effort  was 
made  to  base  all  the  Halachoth  and  Haggadoth  on  the  Biblical 
text  itself.^  Thus  originated  the  proverb,  "turn  and  return  the 
Law  for  everything  is  found  in  it."  ^  Even  then,  the  methods 
that  were  followed  in  deriving  the  oral  laws  from  the  written  one, 
were  not  left  to  the  arbitrary  judgment  of  individual  interpreters, 
but  certain  rules  calculated  to  render  the  deductions  acceptable, 
were  devised.  These  rules  were  systematized  by  R.  Hillel,  and 
summed  up  in  seven  formulas.^  As  is  evident  from  the  examina- 
tion of  these  rules,  interpretation  was  at  that  time,  still  kept 
within  reasonable  bounds,  and  in  many  respects  was  based  on 
perfectly  justifiable  and  acceptable  principles.  Later  on,  Nachum 
of  Gimzo  *  (end  of  i  cent.  A.  D.),  probably  under  the  influence  of 
Philo,  propounded  the  view  that  a  special  meaning  should  be 
attached  to  certain  particles  and  conjunctions,  so  that  on  account 
of  their  presence,  the  text  be  made  to  countenance  the  teachings  of 
tradition,  either  enlarging  upon  it  or  restricting  its  apparent  mean- 
ing.^ This  is  known  as  the  tD^y''Dl  ""n*!  ^  Extension  and  Limita- 
tion.' The  Palestinians,  however,  were  not  as  yet  prepared  to 
admit  such  fanciful  principles,  and  Nachum's  system  was  rejected 
at  the  time,  on  the  plea  that  though  it  is  God  who  speaks  in 
Scripture,  still  He  speaks  for  men  and  adapts  His  language  to 
the  general  rules  of  human  parlance.^ 

41.  But  the  views  of  Philo  were  making  steady  headway  in 
Palestine  ;  Josephus  adopted  his  theory  of  inspiration  according  to 
which  man  is  a  mere  machine  in  the  hands  of  God,^  etc.     This 

^Mielziner,  Introd.  to  the  Talmud,  pp.  120  £f.  ;    Edersheim,  Life,  etc.,  I,  312  f. 

2  Aboth,  V,  32. 

^Sifra,  Introduct.  (end),  edit.  Weiss,  3a ;  Tosefta  Sanh.  vii,  11  (end),  edit. 
Zuchermandel,  p.  427;  Aboth  de  E.  Nathan  (1),  Ch.  37.  On  these  rules  see 
Mielziner,  o.  c,  123  f.  ;  Derenbourg,  Palestine,  176  ff.,  187  ff.  ;  Frankel,  Schrift- 
forsch.,  p.  15  ;  Schiirer,  Geschichte,  ii,  335  f. 

*  Bacher,  Agad.  d.  Tann. ,  i,  57  ff.  ;  Graetz,  History,  ii,  330  f . 

^  Mielziner,  Introduction  to  the  Talmud,  124  f. 

^Mielziner,  ibid. 

''Ant.  IV,  vi,  5  viii,  48,  49;  Cont.  Apion.,  i,  7,  8,  etc.  ;  Edersheim,  Life  of 
Jems,  II,  684  f , 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  37 

same  theory  was  endorsed  by  the  great  Aqiba/  who  drew  exactly 
the  same  consequence  as  Philo,  viz.,  that  everything  in  Scripture 
is  the  effect  of  a  special  design  of  God,  that  nothing  is  useless,  not 
even  a  single  letter  or  sign.  Hence,  every  little  detail  with  which 
the  text  could  dispense,  conveys  a  special  divine  idea.  These 
exaggerated  views  were  not  generally  accepted  by  Aqiba's  con- 
temporaries, who  clung  to  the  seven  rules  of  Hillel  developed  by 
R.  Ismael  b.  Elisha  into  thirteen.^  Aqiba's  method  is  visible, 
however,  in  the  Greek  Version  of  his  disciple  Aquila.  Later  on, 
it  was  adopted  and  perfected  by  R.  Eliezer  b.  Jose,  mostly  for 
Haggadic  purposes.^  It  is  important  to  note  that  the  Palestinian 
Talmud  applies  the  rules  of  Aqiba  comparatively  seldom,  while  a 
much  greater  use  is  made  of  them  in  the  Babylonian  Talmud.'*  It 
is  only  fair  to  state  however,  that  this  use  is  generally  restricted 
to  the  Haggadah,  and  that  the  Rabbis  did  not  intend  to  give  in 
the  Midrash,  the  true  sense  of  Scripture,  which  is  to  be  looked  for 
in  the  literal  interpretation.^ 

C.    Meaning  of  the  Nequdoth  as  Derived  from  the 
Preceding  Considerations. 

FIRST   CONCLUSION. 

42.  From  the  preceding  pages,  we  learn  that  among  the 
Jews  there  were  Textual  and  Exegetical  labors,  and  that  in 
both  spheres  the  influence  of  Alexandria  made  itself  felt.  We 
may  now  draw  a  double  conclusion  with  regard  to  the  Extraordi- 
nary Points.  It  must  be  evident  to  the  reader  that  these  Points 
should  be  referred  to  one  or  to  the  other  of  the  two  prevalent 

iBacher,  Agad.  d.  Tann.,  i,  243  £f.  ;  263-342;  Derenbourg,  Palestine,  395  ff.  ; 
Graetz,  History,  ii,  352  ff.  ;  Mielziner,  o.  c,  125  f.  ;  Ginzberg,  Akiha,  JE,  i,  304 
ff.  ;  Schiirer,  Oesch.,  ii,  375  ff. 

^Sifra,  beginning.  Cp.  Derenbourg,  Palestine,  389  f.  ;  Backer,  Agada  d.  Tann.^ 
I,  232  ff.  ;  Graetz,  History,  ii,  355  ff.  ;  Mielziner,  o.  c,  126  f. 

3  Mielziner,  Introd.,  127  ;  Ginsburg,  Midrash,  in  Kitto's  CBL.,  lu,  165  ff. 

*  See  Surenhusius,  /3//3\os  KaraWayijs  57-88  ;  Frankel,  Schriftforsch. ,  19  ;  Dob- 
schiitz,  Einf.  Exeg.,  11  ff. 

^Mielziner,  o.  c,  122;  Dobschiitz,  /.  c. 


38  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

preoccupations.  It  is  of  prime  importance  to  remember  that 
although  the  primitive  tradition  with  regard  to  the  place  of  the 
Points  may  not  have  been  preserved/  still,  it  is  beyond  all  doubt 
that  they  affect  not  a  whole  sentence  or  clause,  but  only  the  words 
or  letters  over  which  they  are  placed.  If  it  were  not  so  it  would 
be  impossible  to  see  why,  occasionally,  only  one  letter  has  been 
pointed,  while  for  some  other  passages,  we  have  three  or  more 
dots.  Jewish  tradition  besides  is  very  positive  in  asserting  that 
the  Points  refer  only  to  the  elements  thus  marked,  although  it 
may  be  at  variance  as  to  which  letters  should  be  pointed. 

43.  We  may  now  briefly  draw  a  first  conclusion  as  follows : 
The  Nequdoth  bear  only  on  the  words  and  letters  over  which  they 
are  placed,  and  not  on  an  entire  clause  of  the  Biblical  passages ; 
if  then  they  are  exegetical  signs,  they  would  imply  that  a  certain 
interpretation  should  be  put  on  these  pointed  elements ;  but  in 
Palestine,  the  interpretation  of  individual  words  and  letters, 
began  only  at  the  time  of  Nachum  of  Gimzo  and  Aqiba,  and  for 
some  time  afterwards  was  still  regarded  with  suspicion  by  most 
of  the  Kabbis ;  it  is  therefore  improbable  that,  even  if  the 
Nequdoth  had  originated  at  the  time  of  these  two  writers,  they 
would  have  been  allowed  to  pass  into  the  official  text  of  the 
Synagogue  scrolls,  as  signs  of  an  official  interpretation.  The 
Points  moreover  are  undoubtedly  older  than  the  time  of  Nachum, 
and  consequently,  have  still  less  chance  of  indicating  that  an 
exegetical  explanation  is  connected  with  the  words  and  letters 
over  which  they  are  placed.  Besides,  even  if  we  would  grant 
that  at  that  time,  words  and  letters  were  thus  made  susceptible,  of 
a  peculiar  interpretation,  we  do  not  see  why  our  present  dotted 
elements  should  have  been  selected  in  preference  to  so  many 
others.  On  the  one  hand,  even  if  we  understand  the  Jewish 
explanations  literally,  it  does  not  appear  that  from  a  Jewish  point 
of  view,  any  special  importance  should  have  been  attached  to 
these  dotted  Biblical  passages ;  there  were  many  other  places 
apparently  more  important  and  more  likely  to  attract  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Rabbis.     On  the  other  hand,  even  if  we  concede  that 

^  See  the  details  in  our  last  Chapter. 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  39 

these  words  had  a  special  importance,  we  fail  to  see,  why,  for 
instance,  it  should  be  the  yi^WV  of  Num.  xxix,  15,  that  received 
the  dots,  rather  than  that  of  xxix,  1 0 ;  or  why  it  should  be  the 
vht^  of  Gen.  xviii,  9,  rather  than  the  V^K  of  Gen.  xix,  21,  etc. 
Moreover,  in  many  cases,  the  pointed  letters  are  not  at  all 
superfluous  in  the  sense  in  which  they  could  have  been  made 
the  channel  of  a  special  divine  thought,  v.  g.  Gen.  xviii,  9,  '  vhi^y 
Num.  xxi,  30,  ^iti^t<,'  etc. 

44.  Against  the  conclusion  that  the  dots  are  not  exegetical 
signs,  the  fact  that  exegetical  interpretations  have  been  put  upon 
them  cannot  be  adduced  as  an  objection.  If  the  dots  have  a  critical 
value,  and  especially  the  value  of  a  dele^  it  should  be  expected  that 
later  on,  exegetical  conceptions  would  actually  be  derived  from 
them.  Again,  let  us  add  that  like  so  many  other  features  of  the 
text,  these  points  may  have  been  due  to  an  exegetical  bias,  without 
having  an  exegetical  import,  as  is  probably  the  case  with  the 
so-called  ^  Emendations  of  the  Scribes,'  etc. 

SECOND    CONCLUSION. 

45.  As  already  shown,  there  were  various  textual  labors 
among  the  Jews  during  that  time.  We  then  further  conclude 
that  the  Points  are  somehow  connected  with  these  labors,  and 
are  the  expression  of  some  judgment  on  the  text,  either  as  mark- 
ing a  striking  peculiarity,  or  calling  attention  to  some  critical 
doubt.  What  was  exactly  intended  by  the  Nequdoih,  we  are 
likely  to  learn  from  the  use  of  the  same  signs  in  Alexandria,  from 
which  place,  as  said  above,  the  Palestinian  Jews,  probably  bor- 
rowed them.  To  this  end,  it  will  be  enough  to  determine  the  form 
oi  iho;  Nequdoth,  briefly  analyse  the  meaning  of  similar  signs  in  Alex- 
andria, and  flnally  apply  to  the  former  what  we  know  of  the  latter. 

46.  Form  of  the  Nequdoth.  As  to  the  original  form  of 
the  Nequdoth,  there  can  be  but  little  doubt  that  it  was  what  is 
generally  conveyed  by  the  term  "  point."  This  is  made  evident 
by  the  word  that  the  Jews  used  for  designating  them,  viz.  nmpJ  ^ 

1  Thus  Aboth  de  E.  Nathan  (1)  ch.  '34,  (2)  ch.  37  ;  Massorah  Magna  on  Gen. 
xvi,  5 ;  Mass.  Parva,  Deut.  xxix,  28,  etc. 


40  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

[m'ipJ]  plural  of  nmpJ  [n"np^] .  The  substantive  mipJ  in  Eab- 
binical  literature  means  a  ^  point/  real  or  imaginary,  a  *  dot '  made 
with  some  pointed  instrument  or  with  the  pen.  As  designating 
the  Extraordinary  Points,  it  is  used  in  Jer.  Pesachim,  ix,  2,  in 
Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (2),  Chap,  xxxvii,  on  Deut.  xxix,  28,  and 
in  Bemidbar  Rabba,  iii,  13,  on  Deuter.  xxix,  28  ;  mipJ  is  even 
used  collectively  for  the  ensemble  of  the  points  over  a  given  passage, 
in  Jer.  Pesachim,  ix,  2  (?),  Bereshith  Eabba,  Lxxviii,  9  (12),  and 
Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (1),  Chap,  xxxiv,  on  Deuter.  xxix,  28.^ 
The  pointed  passages  are  indicated  in  various  ways.  Occasionally, 
it  is  said  that  such  a  letter  or  word  is  nip:  (mipj,  D^inipJ,  nmpj)  ;^ 
in  these  cases,  11  p^  etc.  are  certainly  pass,  participles  agreeing 
with  the  preceding  word  and  mean  ^  pointed.'  At  other  times, 
the  passage  is  marked  by  vhv  "lip J  or  by  ...  ^j;  "lip J,  followed  by 
the  letters  or  words  which  are  pointed  ;  ^  here,  also,  with  Blau  and 
others,  we  should  read  "l^pj,  ^  it  is  pointed,'  and  not  "]^p3,  ^  point,' 
with  Baer  and  Konigsberger.^  In  some  cases,  especially  in  the 
titles  of  the  various  lists  of  the  Points,  and  in  the  rubrics  of  the 
Massorah,  we  find  SniinD  nmpJ  ''.'^  Here,  since  there  are 
more  than  ten  points  in  the  Law,  ni"l1pJ  is  evidently  a  participle 
referring  to  some  such  word  as  vhl^  understood,  and  should  be 
translated  ^  pointed  passages ' ;  this  is  made  almost  certain  by  the 
fact  that  occasionally  I'l^D  is  actually  expressed.^  We  thus  come 
to  the  conclusion  that  although  ^  Nequdah '  and  ^  Nequdoth '  are 
found  as  substantives  to  designate  the  Extraordinary  Points  as 
such,  and  now  are  commonly  used  in  that  sense,  still  these  words 


*  See  the  various  Dictionaries,  s.  v.  mipi  or  "1p^  ;  thus  Buxtorf-Fischer,  Lexicon 
Chald.  ;  Levy,  Neu-Hebr.  Wtbch.  ;  Jastrow,  DictioTiary  of  the  Targum. ,  etc. ,  ;  Dal- 
man,  Aram.  Neu.-Hebr.  Wtbch.  ;  cp.  also  Hillel,  Die  Nominalbildungen  in  der 
Mischnah,  48  f. 

2  Thus,  V.  g.,  Aboth  de  K.  Nathan  (1),  Ch.  xxxiv,  on  Gen.  xxxiii,  4  ;  Num. 
XXIX,  15 ;  Soferim,  vi,  3,  on  Gen.  xviii,  9 ;  xix,  33  ;  xxxiii,  4,  etc. ;  Leqach 
Tob,  on  Deuter.  xxix,  28,  ed.  Padua,  p.  101. 

^  Thus,  especially  Sifre  ;  cp.  §  69,  and  the  various  texts  in  the  Appendix. 

*Blau,  Einl,  113  f.  ;  Konig,  EinL,  32 ;  Konigsberger,  MuTK,  13,  14,  15,  etc.  ; 
Baer,  Genesis,  p.  95. 

^  See  Appendix. 

^  See  Massoretic  marginal  note  on  Gen.  xxxiii,  4  and  Num.  ix,  10. 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  41 

are  generally  passive  participles  from  the  root  Hpl^  The  verb 
IpJ  is  not  found  in  the  Bible,  but  it  occurs  in  the  Rabbinical 
Hebrew  literature  with  the  sense  of  '  to  pierce/  '  to  prick/  and  in 
Massoretic  terminology,  more  specifically,  '  to  furnish  with  vowel- 
points  and  accents.'  Finally,  in  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan,  (1  and  2), 
Bemidbar  Rabba,  and  Ochlah  w^Ochlah,  it  expresses  the  action  of 
appending  the  Nequdoth;  as  the  word  mipJ  designates  not  only 
the  Extraordinary  Points,  but  also  means  any  kind  of  point  or 
dot,  the  verb  "IpJ,  in  the  above  authorities,  must  mean  '  to  mark 
with  points,'  or,  in  the  Hiph'il  (Aboth  de  R.  Nathan,  2)  ^  to  cause 
to  be  pointed.'  ^  This  meaning  of  HpJ  is  simply  a  palseographical 
adaptation  of  its  original  sense  of  '  to  pierce,'  and  is  nothing  else 
than  the  imitation  with  pen  and  ink  of  a  puncture  or  prick  made 
with  a  sharp  instrument.^  The  Hebrew  "IpJ  is  clearly  recognized 
in  the  Syriac  >M^,  which  also  means  'to  pierce'  and  Ho  mark 
with  points;'  the  substantive  ji-OQ-J  corresponds  to  the  Greek 
(TTcyfJuri  'point.'  The  substantive  jr^^  from  the  root  r^^  is 
also  frequently  used  for  the  aTtyfirj  of  the  Greeks.^  Hence  the 
term  "  m"!1pJ  "  given  by  the  Jews  to  the  Extraordinary  Points  is 
sufficiently  indicative  of  their  form. 

47.  In  the  Hebrew  Manuscripts,  as  a  graphical  sign  of 
the  Nequdoth,  the  common  dot  by  far  prevails ;  it  is  also  supposed 
by  the  remark  of  St.  Jerome,  when  he  says  "  appungunt  desuper," 
etc.,  and  by  the  Origenian  note  referred  to  above  "eV  iravTi 
'E/8/oat/cft)  ^l^Xlco  TrepLecTTLKTatJ^  ^  There  are,  however,  a  few  vari- 
ations as  to  the  shape  of  the  Nequdoth :  occasionally  they  appear 
under  the  form  of  a  little  circle,  thus,  cod.  600  of  Kennicott,^ 

^  On  all  that  precedes,  see  especially  Hy  vernat,  Petite  Introduction  d  V  Etude  de 
la  Massore  (reprint  from  BB. )  s.  v.  Ipl 

^  See  the  Dictionaries  mentioned  above,  s.  v.  Ipl 

^  The  obelus  has  the  same  origin ;  cp.  Liddell  and  Scott,  Greek-Eng.  Lexicon,  s.  v. 
'0/3e\6s ;  Montfaucon,  Palceographia  Orceca,  p.  371. 

^  See  Payne-Smith,  Thesaurus  Ling.  Syriac. ,  ss.  w. 

^  See  above,  p.  4,  n.  6. 

*Bruns,  Be  Variis  Lectionihus  Bibliorum  Kennicoit.,  in  Repertorium,  etc.,  xiii, 
p.  44. 


42  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

cod.  Ebner/  etc. ;  at  other  times,  vertical  ^  or  horizontal  ^  strokes 
take  the  place  of  the  common  points.  Even  in  the  same  MS.  all  these 
different  forms  are  sometimes  found. ^  However,  as  the  points  alone 
correspond  to  the  word  nmpJ  and  are  much  more  used  than  the 
other  forms,  it  is  evident  that  these  variations  are  but  modifications 
or  embellishments  of  the  points.^  In  any  case,  as  they  appear 
interchanged  with  the  dots  proper,  they  must  have  the  same 
meaning. 

48,  Similar  signs  in  Alexandria.  In  Alexandria 
the  points  served  several  purposes :  they  were  adduced  by  Aris- 
tophanes of  Byzantium,  and  later  on  by  Nicanor,^  as  punctuation 
marks  with  a  special  value  according  to  their  position ;  they  are, 
together  with  many  other  signs,  used  to  fill  up  the  blank  spaces 
at  the  end  of  a  line;^  placed  over  numerical  letters,  two  dots 
indicate  the  tens  of  thousands ;  ^  finally,  they  are  used  to  mark 
spurious  elements  of  the  text,  as,  v.  g.  in  the  fragment  of  Hyper- 
ides,  and  later  on  in  the  codex  Sinaiticus.^ 

49.  The  vertical  strokes,  which  occasionally  take  the 
place  of  the  points  in  Hebrew  Mss.,  were  used  in  Alexandria 
to  divide  words  where  a  special  difficulty  occurred,  as  v.  g.y 
where  too  many  consonants  came  together ;  ^^  they  are  appended 
to  the  left  of  numerical  letters  to  denote  thousands,^^  or  to  the 
right  to  denote  fractions ;  ^^  in  the  papyrus  of  Aristotle,  slanting 
strokes  with  dots  indicate  transposition ;  ^^  finally,  they  are  found 

^Eichhorn,  Eiid.,  n,  §  355. 

^  Thus  Cassel  ms.  on  Gen.  xxxiii,  4  ;  see  besides,  Michaelis,  Orient,  u.  Exeg. 
Bibliot.  Th.  i,  pp.  230  f.,  and  Biblia  Hebraica,  on  Gen.  xix,  33,  etc. 

^Michaelis,  Orient Bibliot.,  I.  e. 

*Thus  MS.  1106  of  the  Breslau  library  (Konigsberger,  MuTK,  p.  6,  n.  1). 

^  We  do  not  see  why  Biichler  seems  to  assimilate  them  to  the  vertical  accents 
{Herkunft,  etc.,  pp.  89,  97,  116 f.,  141). 

^  Gardthausen,  Palaeographie,  274 ;  Thompson,  Hdb.  of  Palceography,  70. 

'  Gardthausen,  o.  c,  277. 

^Gardthausen,  o.  c,  267  ;  Thompson,  o.  c,  105. 

*  Gardthausen,  o.  c,  278  f.  ;  Thompson,  o.  c,  74;  Blass,  in  Miiller's  Hdhch., 
etc.,  I,  323. 

1®  Gardthausen,  o.  c,  274. 

^*  Thompson,  o.  c,  104  f. 

*^  Gardthausen,  o.  c. ,  268. 

^^  Thompson,  o.  c,  74. 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  43 

with  the  same  signification  as  the  points,  viz.  to  cancel  letters  or 
words,  and  in  this  sense  they  occur  in  the  codex  Alexandrinus.^ 

60.  The  horizontal  strokes,  which  also  occasionally 
replace  the  points  in  Jewish  MSS.,  are  placed  over  numerical 
letters  to  distinguish  them  from  the  ordinary  elements  of  the 
text ;  ^  we  find  them  over  words  which  are  contracted ;  ^  they 
are  used  by  Origen  to  mark  a  word  found  in  the  lxx  but  not 
in  Hebrew;*  they  are  also  found  with  the  special  purpose  of 
cancelling  spurious  elements,^  and  in  this  sense  they  were  used 
by  Aristarchus :  "  o  Se  ojBeKo^  7rpo<;  to,  aOero-ujieva  eirX  rov  ttoltjtov 
rj^ovv  vevoOevfjLeva  rj  vTro^e^XrjfJLeva  ;  '^  ^  hence  the  verb  o^eXi^eo  ^  to 
mark  as  spurious  by  means  of  the  obelus/  "^ 

51.  We  may  now  apply  to  the  Jewish  Nequdoth  the  meaning 
that  we  find  attached  to  the  corresponding  Greek  signs.  Of 
course,  it  would  be  entirely  preposterous  to  make  the  Hebrew 
Extraordinary  Points  mark  numerical  letters  as  the  Greek  points 
and  strokes  occasionally  do ;  or  to  make  them  correspond  to  the 
Greek  vertical  strokes  or  accents  used  to  separate  words  or  letters, 
where  there  was  a  special  difficulty  in  pronouncing  them  well ;  or 
to  assimilate  them  to  the  various  punctuation  marks ;  or,  finally, 
to  consider  them  as  mere  flourishes  at  the  end  of  a  line.  There 
remains  consequently  but  one  meaning  assignable  to  the  Nequdoth, 
viz.  that,  like  the  Greek  dots,  they  are  signs  of  real  deletions. 
This  is  besides,  the  only  function  on  which  the  various  forms 
of  the  Nequdoth  agree. 

52.  This  conclusion  is  further  strengthened  by  the  meaning 
which  other  nations,  and  the  Jews  themselves  at  a  later  date, 
attributed  to  dots.  Thus  with  the  Latins,  the  points  as  well  as 
the  vertical  and  horizontal  strokes  are  used  to  cancel,^  but  the 
common  sign  for  this  was  the  point,  and  for  this  reason,  we  have 

1  Thompson,  Hdh.,  74. 
^Thompson,  o.  c,  104. 
3  Thompson,  o.  c,  88  f. 

*  Field,  Hexapla,  pp.  lii  ff.,  etc. 

*  Thompson,  o.  c. ,  74 ;  Gardthausen,  Palaeographie,  279. 

*  Gardthausen,  o.  c,  288  f. 

'  See  Liddell  and  Scott,  Greek-Engl.  Lexicon. 

®  Thompson,  o.  c,  75  ;  Prou,  Manuel  de  Pcdeographie,  151  f. 


44  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

the  verb  '  expungere '  in  the  sense  of  '  delere.'  ^  St.  Jerome, 
applying  this  meaning  of  the  obelus,  marked  with  that  sign  the 
Deuterocanonical  portions  of  Daniel  relative  to  Susanna  and  to 
Bel  and  the  Dragon.^  The  point  and  horizontal  stroke  are  also 
used  for  cancelling  by  the  Samaritans.^  The  Jews  at  a  later 
date,  employed  the  points  to  mark  letters  that  were  considered  as 
spurious.  Thus  in  the  St.  Petersburg  Codex  of  the  Prophets, 
Is.  li,  4;  Ezech.  xliv,  10;  xiv,  11,  13;  xx,  7;  Hag.  i,  11; 
ii,  21 ;  Zach.  i,  3,  etc.,^  and  in  many  other  Biblical  MSS.^  Com- 
pare also  Codex  Cassel,  on  Gen.  xli,  25  ;  2  Chron.  iii,  14,  etc.^  The 
dots  serve  the  same  purpose  in  the  Oxford  MS.  of  Pirqe  Aboth 
(Bodl.  145).^  Besides,  mnemonic  catchwords,  letters  of  the  alpha- 
bet taken  as  such,  first  letters  of  abbreviated  words  when  joined 
together,  are  often  marked  with  a  dash,  slanting  strokes  or  points, 
to  show  that  they  are  not  regular  words  of  the  text.^  In  the 
same  way,  points  are  placed  over  quotations  and  like  our 
inverted  commas,  show  that  the  words  are  not  of  the  author 
himself;^  numerical  letters,  though  generally  marked  with  the 
sign  of  abbreviations,  are  also  indicated  by  points,  to  prevent 
their  being  understood  as  an  ordinary  word  of  the  sentence.^*' 
Finally,  when  a  word  cannot  be  written  fully  at  the  end  of  a 
line,  the  entire  word  is  occasionally  repeated  in  the  following  line ; 
but  to  prevent  the  letters  already  written  at  the  end  of  the 
preceding  line  from  being  read  twice,  points  are  placed  upon 
them,  evidently  to  cancel  them." 

^  Blau,  MTJ,  p.  8,  n.  1  ;  cp.  Forcellini,  Totius  Latinitatis  Lexicon,  ii,  238,  col.  1. 

^  Prolegemena  in  Daniel. 

^Peterman,  Ling.  Samarit.  Gramm.,  §8;  Watson,  in  Hebraica,  IX,  224.  This 
method  is  still  used  by  modern  Eastern  Syrians,  as  shown,  v.  g.,  in  Cod.  Hyvernat, 
10,  in  which  three  dots  in  red  ink  appear  ;  cp.  32b,  etc. 

*Ginsburg,  Introd.,  321. 

^See  Baer  and  Strack,  Diqduqe  ha-Teamim,  45,  C.  b  ;  Ginsburg,  Introd.,  334. 

^Michaelis,  Orient,  etc.,  Th.  i,  pp.  231  ff. 

'  Sayings  of  the  Fathers,  edit.  Taylor,  p.  52  of  the  translation,  note  38. 

''See,  V.  g.,  Derenbourg,  Manuel  du  Lecteur,  Journ.  As.,  vi®  Serie,  xvi,  315,  316, 
327,  etc.  ;  Neubauer,  Petite  Gram.  Hehr.,  7,  10,  etc.  ;  Ginzberg,  Genizah  Studies, 
JQR,  XVIII,  104,  109,  etc.  ;  Levias,  Grammar  of  the  Aramaic  Idiom,  p.  6. 

'•^  See  Schechter,  Saadyana,  pp.  122-126. 

1°  See  Levias,  o.  c. ,  p.  5,  n.  3  ;  Ginsburg,  Intr. ,  85,  etc. 

"  Thus  in  a  small  fragment  from  the  Cairo  Genizah,  lent  by  Dr.  S.  Schechter 
to  Prof.  H.  Hyvernat  for  publication.    Six  examples  occur  in  one  page. 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch.  45 

53.  It  would  be  useless  now  to  examine  all  the  theories  on 
the  Nequdoth  in  the  light  of  Palaeography ;  if  the  Nequdoth  could 
be  clearly  identified  with  the  Greek  dots,  they  could  have  no 
other  meaning  than  that  of  a  dele;  nowhere  do  we  find  these 
points  used  to  denote  special  exegesis,  or  striking  features  of  the 
text,  or  discrepancies  between  mss.  and  recensions.  The  opinion 
of  Konigsberger  especially,  is  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  evi- 
dences in  this  line ;  it  would  be  almost  incredible  that  the  Jews, 
who  were  acquainted  with  the  Alexandrian  custom  of  using  dots 
as  signs  of  deletions,  would  themselves  have  employed  them  for 
the  very  reverse,  L  e,,  to  mark  certain  unexpected  letters  as 
genuine  and  consequently  to  be  retained. 

54.  Against  this  conclusion,  Konig^ — cp.  Levias^ — objects 
that  if  the  Nequdoth  had  been  used  to  mark  words  and  letters  as 
spurious,  we  would  expect  the  Jews  to  have  used  them  con- 
sistently. Now,  we  find  such  superfluous  letters  marked  "i'>n'', 
or  ''"IP  K7l  DTlD,  etc.  Therefore,  to  grant  that  the  Nequdoth  were 
designed  to  cancel,  is  to  attribute  to  the  Jews  a  lack  of  con- 
sistency, which  cannot  be  assumed. 

5B,  This  objection  of  Konig  wrongly  supposes  that  no  change 
has  taken  place  in  Jewish  methods  and  practices.  We  know,  to 
give  only  a  few  examples,  that  there  are  three  distinct  systems 
for  the  Massoretic  punctuation ;  ^  we  further  know,  not  only  that 
different  words  were  used  to  designate  the  same  thing,  but  that  the 
same  word  did  not  always  preserve  the  same  meaning,^  etc.  The 
methods  used  for  cancelling  letters  and  words  were  not  restricted 
to  one,  as  Konig  himself  grants,  and  hence  we  find  no  difficulty 
in  admitting  that  the  Nequdoth  were  intended  to  cancel.  The 
same  multiplicity  of  methods  in  cancelling  interpolated  letters, 
is  seen  among  the  Greeks  and  Latins.  Besides  the  method  of 
crossing  out  a  word  or  erasing  it,  they  used  many  others,  such  as : 

^Einl,  p.  33,  n.  1. 

^Levias,  art.  Masorah,  JE,  Vol.  viii,  p.  368. 

3 A  third  system  is  described  by  Kahle,  ZAW,  1901,  pp.  273-317.  See  also 
Bacher,  art.  Punctuation,  JE,  x,  270  f. 

*Elias  Levita,  Massoreth  ha-Massoreih,  passim,  see  v.  g.,  131-133;  Frensdorff, 
Massora  Magna,  1-20.  Hyvernat,  Fetite  Introduction  d  V  Etude  de  la  Massore,  BB, 
1903,  541  ff.  ;  1904,  521  ff.  ;  1905,  203  ff.,  515  ff. 


46  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

including  the  word  between  various  signs  <....>,) )  or 

' ^ ;  placing  accents,  dots,  obelus  over  every  letter,  as  said 

above ;  drawing  a  line  above  or  below  the  word ;  encircling  it  all 
around  with  dots,  etc.^  In  order  to  designate  the  condemnation 
of  a  word,  more  than  ten  verbs  occur  in  Greek,  each  one  indi- 
cative of  a  special  method,  thus :  a^ereo),  oySeXtfo),  Siaypd^o)^ 
/jLeTaypdcjxOj    7repcypd(f)a)j    i/c<ypd(f)(Oj   Trapaypd^co^    i^aXelcfxo^    iK/co- 

XdlTTCOj   'X^ld^CO,   (TTL^COj   TTepLaTL^COy   VTTOO-TL^CO.^ 

In  view  of  what  precedes,  the  Jews  must  appear  to  us  as  very- 
conservative  and  consistent.  Whatever,  therefore,  may  have  been 
the  reason  for  which  they  had  recourse  to  the  points,  it  remains 
true  that  the  lack  of  consistency  cannot  be  adduced  as  an  objection 
against  the  cancelling  value  of  the  Nequdoth;  and  consequently, 
we  have  every  reason  to  maintain  our  conclusion  that  the  Extra- 
ordinary Points  were  real  signs  of  deletions. 


Section  II.     Jewish  Testimonies  on  the 
Points  in  General. 

56.  We  might  be  expected  to  consider  in  this  place  the 
little  clause  found  at  the  end  of  the  list  of  the  Points,  as  given 
by  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (1  and  2)  and  by  Bemidbar  Rabba,  in 
which  Ezra  is  justifying  himself  for  having  written  the  pointed 
letters.  However,  as  this  clause  possibly  refers  only  to  Deuteron. 
xxix,  28,  and  not  to  the  pointed  passages  in  general,  we  postpone 
the  explanation  of  this  testimony  until  we  examine  the  Nequdoth 
of  that  verse.^  As  more  general  notices  we  have  the  words  of  R. 
Simeon  b.  Eleazar,  of  Rabbi,  and  of  the  Zohar. 

67.  The  rule  attributed  to  R  Simeon  b.  Eleazar  by  Bereshith 
Rabba,^ — reproduced  by  many  subsequent  Jewish  writings,^ — and 

^  Gardthausen,  Palaeogr.,  278  f. ;  Thompson,  Hdb.  ofPakeogr.,  74. 

'  See  Liddell  and  Scott,  Greek  Engl.  Lexicon,  ss.  w. 

^  See  lower  down,  §  128. 

*  XL VIII,  15  (17)  ;  Lxxviii,  9  (12). 

^  Thus  Leqach  Tob  on  Genesis  xviii,  9,  edit.  Buber,  p.  84  ;  Shir  ha-Shirim 
Eabba,  vn,  8 ;  Yalqut,  §  82,  §  133 ;  Sekhel  Tob,  Gen.  xviii,  9,  edit.  Buber,  p. 
26 ;  Gen.  xxxiii,  4,  edit.  Buber,  p.  178. 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  47 

to  the  Rabbis  in  general  by  Jer.  Pesachim,  ix,  2,  is  substan- 
tially the  following:  nni^^V  Dipo  ^DD  [my^fc^  1^  ])VtiW  '^  1'0)t<] 

nnn  mipj  DDDH  nx  r;nn  nnx  nmpjn  ^y  nnn  dhd  xiiio 

:  nmpjn  nx  i:;in  nnx  nn^n  ^y.  The  exact  translation  of  this 
passage  is  not  clear,  on  account  of  the  various  meanings  that 
can  be  put  on  mipJ  and  2DD.  In  fact  these  words  do  not  seem 
to  have  been  used  consistently.  In  one  of  the  cases,  viz.  Gen. 
xviii,  9,  yhi<y  where  the  rule  is  applied  by  R.  Simeon  himself, 
the  comparison   is    made   between    the  mipJ  and  the  DDD :   ]t<D 

nr\)p^n  n^  u^nn  ^n^<  nnDn  bv  nn^  nmpjn^;   this  evidently 

supposes  that  nilpJ  is  taken  in  the  sense  of  ^pointed  letters', 
and  DHD  in  the  sense  of  'unpointed  letters,'  for  only  in  this 
interpretation  is  it  true  that  the  mipJ  surpasses  the  2T)D,  The 
same  is  also  true  of  the  probable  application  of  the  rule  to 
Num.  ix,  10,  where  the  DDD  being  more  numerous  than  the 
mipJ,  the  pointed  He  of  npn^  is  left  out  and  prn  referred  to 
tz;*"^.^  This  sense  of  the  two  words  is  also  borne  out  by  the  fact 
that  we  have  no  example  in  the  Pentateuch,  of  the  points  being 
more  numerous  than  the  actual  letters  of  the  pointed  word. 
There  is,  it  is  true,  a  pointed  passage  in  the  Hagiographa,  viz. 
Ps.  xxvii,  13,  in  which  the  points  are  more  numerous  than  the 
letters  of  the  word,  since  this  word  th)h  is  pointed  above  and 
below,^  but  this  passage  does  not  belong  to  the  pre-Massoretic 
official  list  of  the  Nequdoih,  and  it  is  not  probable  that  R.  Simeon 
referred  to  it  in  his  explanation.^ 

On  the  other  hand,  on  Gen.  xxxiii,  4,^  mipJ  and  DDD  are  taken 
in  the  sense  of  'points'  and  'letters'  respectively,  DHD  K^  ]KD 

'  1)1  nnDH  hv  nnn  mip:i  ^h^  mipjn  bv  nnn.    As  the  word  in 

question  inptl^''l  is  entirely  pointed,  R.  Simeon  can  only  mean  that 
the  number  of  the  points  '  mipjn ',  is  equal  to  the  number  of  the 
letters  '  DHDH.' 


^  Jer.  Pesachim,  ix,  2  ;  see  below,  §  98  ff. 

2  See  Massorah  Magna  on  Num.  iii,  39,  and  the  marginal  Massoretic  note  on 
Ps.  xxvii,  13. 

^  Besides,  this  method  of  pointing  is  not  found  in  the  Talmudic 
khoth,  4a — where  the  Points  are  given  for  this  word. 

*Bereshith  Rabba,  Ixxviii,  9  (12)  ;  cp.  §  46. 


48  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

58.  What  is  meant  by  this  rule  is  not  beyond  dispute.^  One 
thing,  however,  seems  to  be  certain,  viz.  that  it  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  import  of  the  Nequdoth.  If  it  were  otherwise,  we 
would  have  to  say,  v.  g.,  that  ^^  ''^  1  of  i^^N  have  been  pointed 
because  the  angels  inquired  about  Abraham,  DH^lD^  "I'lJ^.  At  such 
a  rate,  the  Rabbis  might  have  taken  in  any  given  word  two  or 
three  letters,  yielding  a  desired  sense,  and  pointed  them,  but  this 
would  be  absurd.  The  rule  of  E,.  Simeon  is  a  mere  Haggadic 
adaptation  of  the  letters  already  pointed  for  some  other  reason. 
In  Gen.  xxxiii,  4,  we  are  told  that  since  the  number  of  the  points 
and  of  the  letters  is  the  same,  it  is  a  sign  that  Esau  kissed  Jacob 
sincerely.^  This  is  already  implied  in  the  Biblical  sentence,  with- 
out the  points,  and  hence,  the  latter,  on  inptt^'"!,  would  be  perfectly 
useless.  In  fact  R.  Yanai's  objection  against  him  is  precisely 
that  he  gives  no  real  explanation.  The  fact  that  the  dispositions 
of  Esau  would  have  changed,  and  that  in  the  beginning  he 
intended  to  bite  Jacob  ^  ^'D'W'h  ^'2j  is  not  suggested  by  the  Bibli- 
cal verse  as  long  as  inpu;''!  stands ;  besides,  the  same  might  have 
been  said  of  any  of  the  actions  of  Esau.  If  inptl^"'!  alone  has  been 
pointed,  there  must  have  been  for  this,  apart  from  the  explanation 
of  R.  Simeon,  some  special  reason,  which  did  not  exist  for  the 
other  words  of  the  sentence.  We  are,  therefore,  led  to  the  con- 
clusion, that  R.  Simeon  does  not  intend  to  give  us  the  purpose 
of  the  Nequdoth.  The  only  use  that  can  be  made  of  this  rule  of 
R.  Simeon  will  be  to  find  out  the  place  of  the  Nequdoth  in  his 
day,  but  even  here  it  will  prove  of  little  service,  for  we  have  only 
three  cases  where  it  has  been  clearly  applied. 

59.  Apparently  intended  as  a  corrective  of  the  preceding 
rule,  is  the  expression  of  Rabbi,^  who  says :  WW  ]^^W  ^B  bv  ^^ 

^  See  the  altogether  inadmissable  interpretation  of  Sekhel  Tob  on  Gen.  xxxiii, 
4,  ed.  Buber,  p.  178,  where  this  rule  is  made  to  apply  to  Q^re  w^lo  K^tib.  See 
also  Hirschfeld,  Hagg.  Exegese,  373,  quoted  in  Strack,  Prolegomena,  p.  90. 

^  On  the  differences  between  Shir  ha-Shirim  and  Bereshith  Eabba,  see  Appendix  ; 
Shir  ha-Shirim  has  omitted  a  whole  clause  through  a  homoeoteluton  ""DDbTD". 
Yalqut,  §  133  has  also  important  variations,  but  it  is  evident  that  it  does  not 
transcribe  accurately.  The  objection  of  R.  Yanai  would  be  out  of  place,  if  E. 
Simeon  had  said,  as  Yalqut  makes  him  say,  that  Esau  did  not  kiss  Jacob  sincerely. 

^  Jer.  Pesachim,  ix,  2. 


Exh'aordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  49 

The  ordinary  sense  of  f?^):!^)^  is  ^from  above',  but  here  this 
translation  offers  special  difficulties.  Kabbi  clearly  supposes  that 
there  were  other  cases,  in  which  the  rnipJ  was  not  ]^yD^O.  In 
the  official  list  of  the  Nequdoth  given  in  Sifre,  the  points  are 
always  placed  over  the  letters  to  which  they  refer :  *  I'l^y  11  pj ' 
' . .  .  .  !?V  *npl'  ^  There  is  but  one  case  where,  according  to  Sifre, 
the  points  are  ntOO^OT  H^ViD^Q;^  but,  apart  from  the  fact  that 
these  words  are  generally  understood  as  ^  in  the  beginning  and  at 
the  end/  ^  it  is  not  likely  that  Rabbi  had  in  view  all  the  other 
passages  which  were  pointed  above  but  not  below;  for,  these 
cases  are  the  majority,  and  Rabbi  seems  to  speak  only  of  excep- 
tional occurrences.  Blau^  is  therefore  justified  in  understanding 
]^yD^D  as  '  in  the  beginning  or  on  the  first  letter.'  ^  It  is  true 
that  this  rule,  having  been  framed  for  existing,  and  not  for 
hypothetical  cases,  would  suppose  that  there  were  words  actually 
pointed  on  the  first  letter  only,  whereas  we  know  of  no  such  cases 
in  our  present  method  of  placing  the  dots.  But,  as  we  shall  see 
in  the  examination  of  individual  passages,  there  are  probably 
three  passages  in  which,  according  to  some  schools  the  first  letter 
alone  received  the  points,  although  they  affected  the  entire  word, 
viz.  Gen.  xix,  33,  HDIp^T;  Num.  iii,  39,  ]nnNl;  Num.  xxix,  15, 

Again,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  Rabbi  takes  ^^\^^^  in  its  ordinary 
sense  of  ^  point,'  for,  the  expression  ^  ]^j;d^D  mipJ '  can  be  justified 
only  if  we  distinguish  the  mipj  from  the  letter  to  which  it 
referred.  Besides,  it  is  not  probable  that  Rabbi  would  always 
recommend  the  interpretation  of  the  first  letter  of  a  word,  if 
pointed,  and  refuse  to  interpret  any  other  letter.  If  we  under- 
stand Rabbi  correctly,  his  saying  should  be  rendered  as  follows  : 

1  On  Num.  ix,  10,  §  69,  edit.  Friedman,  18a. 

2  On  Num.  xi,  35,  §  84,  p.  22a. 

3  See  Blau,  MU,  p.  42  ;  Konig,  Einl,  p.  34. 
^MU,  p.  27. 

^Cp.  Targ.  on  Ezech.,  xlii,  9;  xlvi,  19  ;  Num.  iv,  26,  etc.;  in  the  Targuni, 
XibPiD  often  corresponds  to  the  Hebrew  N1D?0*  Compare  besides,  the  massoretic 
use  of  y^br:  in  opposition  to  :?lb):  (Hyvernat,  BB,  1905,  210). 

*  See  these  various  passages  below  in  the  third  chapter. 
4 


50  Cleaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

*  Even  if  there  was  but  one  point,  provided  it  be  on  the  first 
letter,  take  this  point  into  account,  and  leave  out  the  letters.' 
Accordingly,  the  presence  of  the  Point  annuls,  at  least  for 
exegesis,  the  entire  word ;  and  this  implies  that  the  word  was 
considered  as  critically  doubtful,  otherwise  there  would  have  been 
no  reason  not  to  interpret  it  as  well  as  the  others.  How  the 
point  on  the  first  letter  was  deemed  sufficient  to  annul  the  entire 
word,  is  made  clear  if  we  remember  that  in  the  three  cases 
mentioned,  the  pointed  word  begins  with  a  conjunctive  waw;  by 
pointing  this  waw,  and  thereby  removing  it,  the  entire  word  was 
placed  out  of  the  context,  and  this  may  have  been  considered 
sufficient  to  recall  to  mind  that  it  was  spurious  or  at  least  criti- 
cally doubtful,  and  that  consequently  it  should  not  be  interpreted. 

60.  Similar  to  the  view  of  Rabbi,  and  perhaps  borrowed 
from  it,  is  that  of  the  medieval  Jewish  Eabbis,  who  also  tell  us 
that  the  pointed  letters  are  non-existent  for  interpretation ;  ^  that 
they  are  good  only  as  a  basis  for  the  Derash,  but  not  for  the 
literal  interpretation.^  We  are  also  told  that  the  dots  lessen 
the  import  of  a  word,^  and  this  supposes  that  the  Nequdoth  take 
away  from  the  word  something  that  it  would  have  without  them. 
All  this  clearly  suggests,  even  if  not  realized  by  those  Rabbis, 
that  the  pointed  letters  are  not  as  good  critically  as  the  other 
elements  of  the  text,  i.  e.,  that  they  are  at  least  critically 
doubtful. 

In  what  precedes,  we  find  nothing  that  would  militate  in  favor 
either  of  the  would-be  original  exegetical  import  of  the  Nequdoth, 
or  of  their  italicizing  value. 

61.  In  favor  of  the  theory  of  Italics,  we  may  quote  the  pas- 
sage of  the   Zohar  on  Num.  ix,   10:    )rvt^  NT  Hpinn  "]"n3  IX 

*:n^D  nxinx^  I^'tik  ih^di  xnmxn  nmpj  jirxi  mvjvo  nn 

This  testimony  is  not  so  clearly  in  favor  of  the  view  of  Konigs- 
berger  as  might  seem  at  first;  nXTPIX^  ^to  make  visible,  or 
prominent,'  does  not  necessarily  mean  ^  to  italicize,'  in  the  sense 

^  See  above,  §  5.     See  also  Leqach  Tob.  on  Deut.  xxix,  28,  ed.  Padua,  p.  101. 
2  Kashi  on  Baba  Metsi'a,  87a  ;  Comm.  on  Gen.  xix,  33,  etc. 
^Rashi  on  Menachoth  87b  (top)  ;  Sanh.  43b,  etc, 
*  Quoted  in  Buxtorf,  Tiberias,  p.  180. 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  51 

of  retaining  a  word  although  there  would  seem  to  be  grounds  for 
rejecting  it.  The  words  of  the  Zohar  would  still  be  justified, 
even  if  it  had  considered  the  Nequdoth  as  deletive  signs.  In  any 
case  it  is  needless  to  remark  that  the  Zohar  is  of  late  origin/  and 
may  have  been  influenced  by  the  methods  of  the  Massorah  proper, 
which  precisely  calls  attention  to  all  the  various  features  of  the 
text. 


See  especially  Zunz,  Qott.  Vortr.j  419  S. 


52  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 


CHAPTER   III. 


THE   INDIVIDUAL   POINTED   PASSAGES,   IN   THE 

LIGHT  OF  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM  AND 

OF   THE   JEWISH   WRITINGS. 


62,  As  remarked  above,  the  use  of  Textual  Criticism  with 
regard  to  the  meaning  of  the  Nequdoth,  is  widely  different  from 
the  use  of  the  same,  when  the  aim  of  the  investigation  is  to 
discover  the  true  original  readings  of  the  Hebrew  text.  Our 
intention  is  simply  to  find  out  what  was  the  state  of  the  text  when 
the  Points  came  into  existence,  and  thus  to  be  enabled  to  reach 
some  conclusion  concerning  their  original  import. 

As  to  the  Jewish  testimonies  which  we  shall  use  in  this  Chap- 
ter, it  might  have  been  desirable  to  collect  them  here,  and  submit 
them  to  a  critical  study ;  thus  the  reader  would  know  at  the  outset 
what  in  them  is  original  tradition,  and  what  is  mere  Midrash. 
However  such  a  work  of  comparison,  as  it  implies  a  work  of  inter- 
pretation which  is  possible  only  in  the  examination  of  each  pas- 
sage, cannot  properly  be  done  here.  We  shall  therefore  content 
ourselves  with  giving  a  full  list  of  these  testimonies,  with  the  text 
of  the  most  important  of  them,  viz.,  Sifre.  The  text  of  the  others 
will  be  found  in  an  Appendix  at  the  end  of  this  work. 

63.    A.   Testimonies  in  which  the  Nequdoth  are  Grouped. 

Without  explanations. 

Soferim,  vi,  3.^  Massorah  Magna  on  Num.  iii,  39.^  Diqduqe 
ha-Te'amim.^ 

^  Edited  by  Miiller,  Masechet  Soferim.  It  is  also  found  in  the  editions  of  the 
Babylonian  Talmud  among  the  minor  treatises  at  the  end  of  Seder  Nesiqin.  In 
its  final  redaction,  it  belongs  to  the  viii  or  ix  cent.  A.  d.,  but  Ch.  vi-ix  seem  to 
be  older.  See  Harris,  JQB,  i,  230;  Miiller,  o.  c,  21  f.  ;  Zunz,  Gott.  Vortr.y  p. 
100  ;  Mielziner,  Introd.  to  the  Talmud,  p.  63. 

2  See  also  Ochlah  weQchlah,  ed.  Frensdorff,  n.  96. 

'Diqduqe  ha-Te'amim,  in  the  Eabb.  Bible  of  Venice,  1517-18,  App.  O,  fol.  'X 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  63 

With  explanations. 

Sifre  on  Num.  ix,  10,  §69.^  Aboth  de  E.  Nathan  (1st  recension) 
Ch.  XXXI v.^  Aboth  de  E.  Nathan  (2nd  recension),  Ch.  xxxvii.^ 
Midrash  Mishle,  NJlti;  nD^  ITlDtl^D  Prov.  xxvi,  24.*  Leqach 
Tob  (Pesiqta  Zutarta),  on  Num.  ix,  10.^  Bemidbar  Eabba,  iii, 
1*3.^ 

64,     Individual  Testimonies  on  the  Pointed  Passages. 

Gen.  xviii,  9.     Baba  Metsi'a,  87a  middle. — Bereshith  Eabba/ 

recto.  Diqduqe  ha-Te'amim  is  a  Grammatico-Massoretic  treatise  by  Aharon  b. 
Asher,  x  cent.  A.  d.  (cp.  JE,  i,  p.  18).  It  is  doubtful  whether  the  passage  rela- 
tive to  the  Points  is  original :  it  is  not  found  in  most  recensions  (see  Ginsburg, 
Introd.,  p.  281  ff.  ;  Baer  and  Strack,  p.  viii).  Baer's  MS.  contains  much  extrane- 
ous matter  borrowed  from  various  sources  and  especially  from  Midrash  Mishle. 

^  Ed.  Friedmann,  18a  ;  this  testimony  is  reproduced  in  Yalqut,  §  722,  and  in 
Midr.  Leqach  Tob,  edit.  Padua,  p.  194.  It  is  also  found  in  Ugolini,  Thesaurus 
Antiquit.  Sacrarum,  XV,  p.  cxlv.  The  work  belongs  to  the  m  or  iv  cent.  A.  d. 
See  Friedmann^ s  Introduct.  (Hebrew)  ;  Mielziner,  Intr.  to  the  Talmud,  p.  20. 

2  Ed.  Schechter,  pp.  100  f.  Aboth  de  E.  Nathan  is  a  kind  of  Tosefta  to  the 
Mishnic  Tractate  'Pirqe  Aboth.'  In  its  present  shape,  it  is  post-Talmudic, 
probably  vi  or  vii  cent.  A  recension  very  different  from  the  one  published  in 
the  Talmud,  was  edited  by  Tausik  (Munich,  1872).  The  two  recensions  are 
given  in  parallel  columns  by  Schechter.  On  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan,  see 
especially  Schechter,  Introd.  (Hebrew)  ;  Mielziner,  Introd.,  p.  63. 

3  Ed.  Schechter,  pp.  97  f. 

*  Ed.  Buber,  p.  99  f.  Midrash  Mishle  is  a  Comment,  on  Proverbs  belonging  to 
the  X  or  xi  cent.  See  Buber' s  Introd.  (Hebrew)  ;  Zunz,  o.  c,  p.  280.  The 
passage  relative  to  the  Points  is  missing  in  the  ordinary  editions,  but  it  is  found 
in  the  editions  of  Constantinople  and  was  known  to  the  author  of  Arukh  (s.  v. 
np])  ;  see  Buber,  p.  99,  n.  10. 

^  Edit.  M.  Padua,  p.  194.  Leqach  Tob  is  a  Midr.  Comment,  on  the  Pentateuch 
by  Tobia  b.  Eliezer  ;  it  is  also,  but  wrongly  called  Pesiqta  Zutarta.  The  first  two 
books  were  edited  by  Buber,  1880,  the  last  three  by  M.  Padua,  1880 ;  Levit. 
Num.  and  Deut.  are  also  found  in  Ugolini,  o.  c. ,  xvi,  1  ff .  It  dates  from  the  xii 
cent.  See  Zunz,  Gott.  Vortr.,  pp.  195  ff.  ;  Buber's  Introd.  (Hebrew);  Welte, 
Jiid.  Litter.,  i,  462 ff.  ;  Hamburger,  REdJ,  Suppl.  i,  117-122. 

*Comm.  on  Num.  of  the  x  or  xi  cent.  A.  d.  See  Zunz,  o.  c,  270  ff.  ;  Wiinsche, 
Biblioth.  Babb.,  Introd.  to  Bemidbar  Rabba.     Cp.  JE,  ii,  669  ff. 

^Bereshith  Eabba,  xlviii,  15  (17)  ;  it  is  a  Haggadic  Comm.  on  Gen.,  and 
belongs  to  the  v  or  vi  cent.  See  Zunz,  Gott.  Vortr.,  184  ff.  ;  Wiinsche,  Biblioth. 
Babbin.,  Introd.  to  Bereshith  Eabba ;  JE,  viii,  557. 


i. 


54  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

— Leqach   Tob.^— Sekhel  Tob.^— Midrash   ha-Gadol.' 
Gen.  XIX,  33.    Nazir,  23a. — Horayoth,  10b. — Bereshith  Eabba."* 

Midr.    Yelamdena.^— Leqach   Tob.«— Sekhel   Tob.^— 

Zohar.8— Midr.  ha-Gadol.^ 
Gen.  XXXIII,  4.     Bereshith  Kabba.^" — Shir  ha-Shirim  Kabba." 

—Leqach  Tob.^^— Midr.  Tanchuma.^^— Sekhel  Tob.^*— 

Zohar.i^— Midr.  ha-Gadol.^^ 
Gen.  XXXVII,  12.     Bereshith  Eabba.^^ — Leqach  Tob.^^ — Sekhel 

Tob.^^— Midr.  ha-Gadol.^" 
Num.  Ill,  39.     Bekhoroth,  4a. — Leqach  Tob.^^ 
Num.  IX,  10.     Mishn.  Pesachim,  ix,  2. — Jerus.  Pesachim,  ix,  2. 

— Tosefta  Pesachim,  viii,  3. — Zohar.^ 

lEd.  Buber,  p.  84. 

'  Haggad.  Coram,  on  Genesis,  and  Exodus  by  Menachem  b.  Salomo  ;  ed.  Buber, 
p.  26. 

'  GDllection  of  Rabbinic  homilies  on  the  Pentateuch,  compiled  in  the  xiv  cent, 
by  a  Yemen  Jew.  Genesis  has  been  published  by  Schechter  (1902).  On  Gen. 
xviii,  9,  see  col.  273. 

*M,  8  (10). 

*  A  lost  Comm.  on  the  Pentateuch  ;  Zunz  ascribes  it  to  the  ix  cent.  Many 
passages  have  been  preserved  in  Aruch  and  Yalqut.  It  is  different  from  Mid- 
rash  Tanchuma,  although  this  latter  has  been  occasionally  printed  under  the 
name  of  Yelamdenu,  Buber  published  a  recension  of  Midr.  Tanchuma,  which 
he  claims  to  be  anterior  to  Yelamdenu.  In  general,  see  Zunz,  Gott.  Vortr..,  237 
ff.  ;  Buber' s  Introduct.  (Hebrew),  but  see  also  Neubauer,  RE  J,  xni,  224  f.  The 
passage  relative  to  the  Points  is  quoted  in  Aruch,  s.  v.  VM ,  and  in  Yalqut,  §  86, 
with  slight  variations. 

«Ed.  Buber,  p.  90. 

'  Ed.  Buber,  p.  40. 

®  Quoted  in  Minchath  Shai,  ad  locum. 

9  Ed.  Schechter,  col.  297. 

^^Lxxvm,  9  (12). 

"VII,  8. 

"Ed.  Buber,  p.  171. 

"Ed.  Frankf.  a.  O.,  12c. 

i*Ed.  Buber,  p.  178. 

*^  Quoted  in  Buxtorf,  Tiberias,  p.  176. 

i«Ed.  Schechter,  col.  516. 

"lxxxiv,  13  (12). 

"Ed.  Buber,  p.  188. 

19  Ed.  Buber,  p.  217. 

20  Ed.  Schechter,  col.  661. 
"Ed.  M.  Padua,  p.  168. 

*2  Quoted  in  Buxtorf  s  Tiberias,  p.  180. 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch.  55 

Num.  XXI,  30.     Midr.  ha-Gadol.^ 

Num.  XXIX,  15.     Menachoth,  87b. 

Deut.  XXIX,  28.     Sanhedrin,  43b. — Leqach  Tob.^ 

65,  Sifre,  '^n'^yHD.  On  Num.,  ix,  10,  §  69.  Ed.  Fried- 
man, 18a.^ 

t^DD  Kim  nnnp  yn:!  ""Dx  N'nn  bv  mpj  npinn  ^niD  i« 
t6'\:;  ^rai  "Tn  'r\  toDti^^  id  ^^i^v^   tnoDn  nx  onoy  n^iy  mn  k^ 
:nra^  i:''D  n^no  ''•^^toan  hv  n"'1  n:^'?^  n^n  ^y  t6^  )b  nno« 

K^  HDD^D  nai^  niDipni  ^j;  -np:  noipni  hddu^d  yT  k^i  d  n^^vd 
w'^  )2b  ^DD  ipu^j  b^bvj  mpti^^i  n  KiJVD  tvi''  HDipni  yT 
VDHi  iDcnj  x^K  npy''^  Kjiir;  iti^yti^  j;n''n  hdSi  niDi^<  '•ni''  d 

□HD  Ki^VD  :niD2iv  Di^  myn^  ^<^x  D^n  x^ir;  v'py  mp:  d^dx 
:  p  mn  i^n^D  ?i^<ii^  ti^j;  mp^  k^td  ^v  ^t^^  hdij  iy  n^'U'Ji 
rvn  i<bu;  vbv  mp:)  innh?i  nu;o  npD  nii;^  d''iS"i  mpD  b^  in  ni^t'D 
[^y]  inii^y  bv  "iip:i  inti;j;  inw  n  KiiT'D  tj'iJDn  ]d  iint< 
'n^  nnnD:in  in  niji^'d  nn^n  nni<  inw  (^y)  t^^x  mn  x^^ 
''3K  ^ix  D'li^:!.-!  an^ii^j;  ^x  iipj  n^iy  nj;  ij'ijn^i  u*?  ni^ijni  i3%n^x 
lip:)  'npinn  "|mn  ix  nnx  ]xd  ^ix  :nnnD:n  nx  dd^  vmx 
:  noDn  nx  nn^y  n^iy  mn  x^  xioto  mm  nnnp  "|n"in  mn  ''•Dxti;  I'l^y 

66,  As  Sifre  is  by  far  the  most  important  testimony  on  the 
original  meaning  of  the  Nequdoth,  and  the  starting  point  of  many 
of  the  subsequent  explanations,  we  may  be  allowed  a  few  remarks 
on  this  testimony.  First  of  all,  it  is  beyond  doubt  that  Sifre 
intends  to  give  us,  not  a  Midrashic  adaptation  to  letters  already 
pointed,  but  the  true  purpose  of  the  Nequdoth,  In  all  cases,  it 
tells  us  that  such  and  such  a  passage  is  pointed  '  because '  .  .  .  . 
and  then  he  gives  the  reason  for  the  existence  of  the  dots.  In  the 
sequel,  we  shall  attempt  to  find  out  the  true  bearing  of  these  ex- 
planations ;  let  it  suffice  for  the  present  to  remark  that  they  are 
not  Haggadic  speculations  based  on  the  pointed  letters  or  words. 
We  have  seen  above  that  the  Nequdoth  bear   only  on  certain 


^See  in  Schechter,  Aboth  de  E.  Nathan  (1),  p.  101,  n.  27. 

2  Ed.  Padua,  p.  101. 

'  This  testimony  is  reproduced  in  Yalqut,  §  722  ;  and  in  Leqach  Tob  on  Num. 
ix,  10,  ed.  Padua,  p.  194.  The  principal  variants  will  be  indicated  in  the  Appendix  ; 
the  differences  between  Sifre  and  Leqach  Tob  are  so  numerous,  that  we  shall  give 
the  two  testimonies  separate. 


66  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

elements  of  the  text,  and  not  on  the  entire  sentence  or  verse.  We 
have  also  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  individual  words  and 
letters  were  not  then  made  the  basis  for  special  interpretations. 
Accordingly,  it  is  a  priori  probable  that  Sifre,  which  reproduces 
the  old  traditions  of  the  ii  cent.  A.  D.,  does  not  intend  to  give  the 
interpretation  of  individual  letters,  as  the  original  purpose  of  the 
Points.  Besides,  there  is  absolutely  no  connection  between  the 
pointed  letters  and  the  explanations  given  of  the  purpose  of  the  dots. 
A  ^yod^  in  T^D,  or  a  ^  riK '  before  the  direct  object  of  a  verb,  can 
never  signify  that  Sarah  spoke  only  with  reference  to  Hagar,  or 
that  the  brothers  of  Joseph  went  to  Shechem  only  in  order  to  feed 
themselves.  On  the  other  hand,  a  little  examination  of  this  pas- 
sage of  Sifre  will  convince  us,  that  not  only  no  special  interpre- 
tation should  be  based  on  the  pointed  letters,  but  that  on  the 
contrary  these  letters  are  entirely  set  aside,  and  that  the  Points 
have  precisely  the  function  of  marking  these  letters  as  not  to  be 
interpreted.  It  is  certainly  noteworthy  that  the  present  Massoretic 
text,  without  the  Points,  would  imply  or  might  imply  the  very 
contradictory  of  what  Sifre  makes  it  imply  with  the  Points.  This 
will  be  examined  in  detail  later ;  let  us  simply  give  one  example. 
On  Num.  iii,  39,  we  read  that  Moses  and  Aaron  numbered  the 
Levites,  etc.  Aaron  therefore  took  part  in  the  numbering ;  but 
according  to  Sifre,  because  ]*inN1  is  pointed,  we  are  obliged  to  say 
that  Aaron  did  not  take  part  in  that  numbering.  It  is  evident 
that  on  this  passage,  Sifre  thought  that  the  Nequdoth  annulled 
]'nnt<1,  and  its  explanation  of  the  Points  is  but  an  indirect  way 
of  saying  that  for  some  reason  ]in5<1  should  be  left  out.  Some- 
thing similar  is  found  in  all  the  passages.  The  conclusion  is 
therefore  forced  upon  us,  that  these  explanations  of  the  Points  by 
Sifre,  are  only  an  indirect  means  of  suggesting  their  true  purpose. 
Perhaps  this  indirect  way  of  explaining  the  import  of  the  Points 
is  a  mere  display  of  wit,  calculated  to  raise  the  curiosity  of  the 
students,  make  a  deeper  impression  on  their  memory,  exercise  and 
develop  their  mental  acumen.  Possibly  also,  this  method  of  pre- 
sentation is  a  euphemistic  device  to  avoid  scandalizing  the  weak 
and  uninitiated,  as  might  have  been  done  by  the  blunt  assertion 
that   some   elements   of   the   Bible   were   spurious   or   doubtful, 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  57, 

especially  at  a  time  when  it  was  firmly  believed  that  every  word 
had  been  given  to  Moses.  Or  again,  we  may  have  to  deal  here 
with  formulas,  explicitly  framed  as  mnemonic  phrases  in  order  to 
help  the  memory  of  the  pupils.  Mnemonic  devices  of  all  kinds 
were  common  even  in  pre-Talmudic  times.^  Whatever  may  be 
the  nature  of  the  explanations  of  Sifre,  it  is  certain  that  at  least 
in  so  far  as  they  afford  indirect  information  regarding  the  function 
of  the  Nequdoth,  they  are  of  the  highest  value,  since  they  give  us 
the  view  current  among  the  Rabbis  before  the  iii  century  of  the 
Christian  era. 

This  will  sufficiently  account  for  the  preference  given  to  Sifre 
in  the  following  pages,  both  in  relation  to  the  original  meaning 
of  the  Nequdoth,  and  to  the  place  that  they  should  occupy  in  the 
pointed  passage.^ 


Genesis,  XVI,  5. 

^nnj  ^DJ«  yhv  ^DDH  DnDN  W  ntrf  n»t<m 

67.  According  to  the  Massorah  the  Points  fall  on  the  second 
yod  of  yy^2)  ^ ;  to  this  correspond  the  Synagogue  scrolls,  Baer's 
Diqduqe  ha-Te'amim,*  Codex  Hilleli,^  and  probably  also  Soferim  * 
and  Midr.  Mishle  ^  "  "Iipj  y:^22]i;  r)\''  Sifre  (cp.  Yalqut,  §  722) 
and  after  it,   Bemidbar  Rabba,^  leave  the  place  of  the  Points 


^  On  the  mnemonic  phrases  and  devices,  see  especially  Briill,  Die  Mnemotechnik 
d.  Talm.  (Hebrew),  passim;  Lauterbach,  Mnemonics,  JE.  Compare  besides, 
the  authorities  mentioned  above,   §  27. 

^  In  the  following  pages,  we  shall  retain  the  term  '  catchword '  as  applying  to 
the  explanations  of  Sifre,  without  thereby  taking  the  position  that  they  are  really 
mnemonic  formulas.   ' 

'  See  Mass.  Magn.  ad  locum ;  Ochlah  w^Ochlah,  Frensdorff,  n.  96  ;  Norzi,  Min- 
chath  Shai,  ad  locum  ;  Michaelis,  etc. 

*  Baer  and  Strack,  n.  58,  p.  46. 

^  See  Norzi,  Minchath  Shai,  I.  c.  ;  Ginsburg,  Massorah  Compiled,  ill,  107. 

«vi,  3.     Cp.  Miiller,  p.  87. 

T  On  Prov.  XXVI,  24.     Ed.  Buber,  p.  99. 

8  III,  13. 


68  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

undetermined.  Leqach  Tob  (list)/  Diqduqe  ha-Te'amim/  and 
the  Massoretic  list  on  Num.  iii,  39,  place  the  dots  over  '^''^'•D^ 
without  further  specification.  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (1)  ^  seems  to 
point  the  first  yod  instead  of  the  second,  "-]''y''DDtt;  "»  bv  "lyi" 
Finally,  a  few  Biblical  mss.^  and  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (2)  ®  point 
every  letter  of  Y''''^"''^"). 

68.  The  pointed  y:^^y\  is  found  in  the  Sam.  Pent.,  and 
supposed  by  lxx,  Peshitto,  Vulgate,  Targ.  Onkelos,  etc.^.  How- 
ever, the  nature  of  the  dotted  letter  is  such,  that  whether  it  be 
preserved  or  rejected,  the  sense  remains  the  same.  As  the  whole 
question  hinges  on  the  presence  or  absence  of  the  yod,  the 
versions  do  not  help  us  in  the  solution. 

The  Sam.  Pent,  reads  *]J''D1,  without  the  yod,  and  although 
the  great  mass  of  Hebrew  MSS.  have  that  letter,  still  it  is  absent 
in  Kenn.  69,  75,  89,  150,  155,  157,  185,  189,  601,  and  first 
hand  in  3,  139,  223.  In  all  the  passages  of  the  Hebrew  Bible, 
the  preposition  Y.^,  est.  ^2,  in  conjunction  with  the  pronoun 
2d  msc.  sing.,  is  ?]3''3  (Gen.  iii,  15,  1  Sam.  xx,  23),  or  in  a 
pause  ^1^2  (Gen.  xiii,  8  ;  xvii,  2 ;  xxvi,  28  ;  xxxi,  49,  50,  51). 
There  is  only  one  exception,  viz.  1  K.  xv,  19,  where  it  is  written 
as  in  our  present  verse  ^''^3 .  Even  in  this  last  passage  some 
thirty  MSS.  of  Kennicott  read  it  "]^''D  J 

Thus  only  twice, — and  once  doubtfully, — has  the  preposition 
Y^y  with  the  suffix  of  the  2nd  msc.  sing.,  taken  the  plural 
form.  Whether  or  not  yy^^  be  strictly  possible  from  a  grammati- 
cal point  of  view,^  it  is  to  be  noticed  that,  with  the  exception  of 

iQn  Num.  ix,  10.     Edit.  Padua,  p.  194. 

'^  At  the  end  of  the  first  Rabbinic  Bible,  Venice,  1517  f.     App.  O,  fol.  'X,  recto, 

3Ch.  XXXIV,  Ed.  Schechter,  p.  100. 

*See  Blau,  MtU.,  p.  118. 

^Ch.  xxxvii.     Ed.  Schechter,  p.  97. 

®  On  the  Textual  Criticism  of  this  passage,  see  Eosenmiiller,  Scholia,  ad  locum ; 
Delitzsch,  Gen.,  282;  Dillmann,  Gen.,  250;  Strack,  Gen.,  Lev.,  Num.,  p.  53; 
Gunkel,  Genesis,  163,  etc. 

'See  Rashi,  on  Genes.,  xvi,  5,  ''Nb?D  nTI  IDH  XIp^D^J?  "j^i^D  ^D  "  ;  Mass,  P., 
ibid.,  "  n"lin2  nV)3  'V'  ;  see  also  Norzi,  3finchath  Shai,  ibid. 

^See  Gesenius-Kautzsch,  Hebr.  Gram.  (27th  edit.),  §  103,  o;  Strack,  Hebr. 
Gram.,  §  43,  c ;  Konig,  Lehrgebdude,  Th.  n,  1,  pp.  302,  305  £f. 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  59 


Gen.  xvi,  5 ;  1  K.  xv,  19  (?) ;  Joshua  iii,  4  (Q®re),  viii,  11 
Q®re),  this  preposition  is  always  united  to  singular  sufi&xes,  with- 
out the  yod;  thus  we  have:  "iM/  I^D ,^  ']rD.^  The  passage  in 
Gen.  xvi,  5,  is  perfectly  parallel  with  Gen.  xiii,  8,  etc.,  and  there  is 
no  apparent  reason  why  it  should  be  written  differently  here.  Hence, 
the  second  yod  is  rightly  rejected  by  almost  all  critics.  It  is  true 
that  it  is  a  sound  principle  of  Textual  Criticism,  that  changes  may 
be  made  to  harmonize  divergent  parallel  passages,  but  not  to  make 
them  dissimilar,  and  hence,  we  should  expect  TJ''^  to  be  changed 
into  "iJ'iD,  not  ^y^2  into  yy^2 ;  still  a  homoeoteleuton  is  very  likely 
in  this  passage,  and  we  cannot  refrain  from  thinking  that  it  is 
actually  responsible  for  the  presence  of  the  yod  in  yy^2.  Com- 
pare the  forms  yhv,  H^^'iyD,  y^'^V^y  rV^B'O,  etc.,  which  occur  in 
the  same  and  in  the  next  verse.  In  any  case,  it  is  beyond  doubt, 
as  shown  from  the  Sam.  Pent,  and  MSS.,  that  there  were  several 
recensions,  in  some  of  which,  wrongly  or  rightly,  the  dotted  yod 
was  not  to  be  found. 

69.  The  explanations^  given  of  the  Points  by  Sifre  are  as 
follows :  "  It  is  pointed  because  she  (Sarah)  said  this  to  him 
(Abraham)  only  with  reference  to  Hagar ;  there  are  some,  how- 
ever, who  say  that  (she  spoke)  with  reference  to  those  who  caused 
strife  between  him  and  her."  This  is  substantially  reproduced 
by  all  the  other  Jewish  writings,  v.  g.^  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (1 
and  partly  2),  Leqach  Tob  (list),  and  Bemidbar  Rabba.  The 
amplifications  of  Midr.  Mishle,  reproduced  and  somewhat  enlarged 
in  Codex  Baer  of  Diqduqe  ha-Te*amim,  do  not  belong  to  the 
primitive  tradition  and  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  Nequdoth, 

We  have  just  remarked  that,  whatever  be  the  reason  that 
underlies  the  fact,  ^"2,  when  in  connection  with  the  suffixes  of  the 
singular,  seldom  or  never  takes  the  yod  of  the  plural :  *]J''3,  lU'^D, 
^J'^D,  ^Tl.     On  the  other  hand,  it  always  takes  it  with  the  plural 

^  Gen.  IX,  12,  13,  15,  17 ;  xiii,  8 ;  xvi,  5,  etc. 

2  Gen.  XXX,  36  ;  Lev.  xxvi,  46,  etc. 

'  See  places  mentioned. 

*0n  these  explanations  see  Buxtorf,  Tiberias,  174  ;  Miiller,  Soferim,  87  ;  Blau, 
MU,  17  fl.  ;  Konigsberger,  MuTK,  11 ;  Ginsburg,  Introd.,  323  ;  Weir,  Hebr. 
Text,  56, 


60  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

suffixes :  DrTt^D,^  □D''J''3,^  1J''J''D.^  The  impression  produced  by 
the  presence  of  the  yod  is,  therefore,  that  it  implies  a  plural  idea 
in  y^f  as  it  does  generally  for  ordinary  Hebrew  substantives.'* 
Accordingly,  our  present  passage,  written  y^'^2,  would  seem  to 
indicate  that  between  Abraham  and  Sarah  there  existed  several 
reasons  for  disagreement,  several  CJ'iD.^  This  may  not  be  true 
in  reality,  but  it  may  fiirnish  sufficient  grounds  for  a  mnemonic 
explanation.  The  difference  of  opinion  among  the  Rabbis  seems 
to  have  been  due  precisely  to  the  presence  or  absence  of  the  yod 
in  'y^'^2.  While  the  majority  maintained  that  the  yod  should  be 
cancelled,  and  gave  as  reason  that  Sarah  spoke  only  with  reference 
to  Hagar,  etc.,  i.  e.,  that  ^^  should  be  in  the  singular,  "^^D,^  the 
minority  claimed  that  the  plural  form,  yy^2,  should  be  retained, 
and  hence  said  that  Sarah  spoke  with  reference  to  those  that 
caused  strife  between  him  and  her.  The  Nequdah,  placed  over 
the  yod  according  to  the  first  view,  should  not  be  appended 
according  to  the  second.  The  difference  of  opinion  w^as  occa- 
sioned, not,  as  is  commonly  supposed,^  by  the  difference  of  the 
explanations  suggested  for  the  Points,  but  by  the  right  that 
the  dots  had  of  being  placed  at  all  over  this  letter  yod.     This,  we 

^  1  Sam.  XVII,  3  ;  Job  xli,  8,  etc. 

'^Gen.  IX,  12,  15 ;  xvii,  11 ;  Jos.  iii,  4 ;  etc. 

^  Gen.  XXVI,  28 ;  Jos.  xxii,  27  ;  etc. 

* Gesenius-Kautzsch,  Hehr.  Gram.,  §  91. 

^  ]"*!]  is  something  that  belongs  to  the  person  indicated  in  the  suffix  or  to  whom 
it  is  referred  ;  hence  it  is  repeated  before  words  placed  in  opposition,  or  at  least 
is  used  in  the  plural.     See  Konig,  I.  c. 

*Cp.  Hamburger,  REdJ,  ii,  1215.  The  suppression  of  the  yod  in  ']**J**2  is  also 
admitted  by  R.  Jochanan,  who  claims  that  we  should  write  '^^D  not  'y'^^'2  (Bere- 
shith  R.  XLV,  8).  This  was  adopted  by  many  mediaeval  Rabbis,  who  asserted 
that  we  should  read  T]^;)D1  m^^.  (Thus  Rashi,  l.  c,  cp.  Yalqut,  §  79  ;  HiinD  n"i:in?i 
on  Ber.  Rabba  xlv,  8)  ;  see  Minchath  Shai,  ad  locum.  They  seemed  to  have  realized 
that  a  yod  should  be  left  out  in  '^"'^''Z)  and  they  removed  the  first  one  to  accommo- 
date the  word  to  the  idea  of  R.  Jochanan  ;  this  view  probably  influenced  Aboth  de 
R.  Nathan  (1)  to  point  the  first  yod  (Cp.  Bachya,  in  Konigsberger,  MuTK,  p.  12  ; 
Qimchi,  ad  locum,  ed.  Ginzburg,  p.  43a).  The  Haggadic  speculations  that  because 
Sarah  rebuked  Abraham,  her  life  was  shortened  by  48  years,  connected  with 
the  Points  by  Konigsberger,  have  nothing  to  do  with  them,  and  in  Bereshith 
Rabba,  from  which  they  are  taken,  they  are  not  referred  to  the  Nequdoth  at  all. 
Cp.  Bereshith  Rabba,  xlv,  7  (5)  (end). 

'Cp.  Blau,  MUy  I.  c. ;  Ginsburg,  Introd.,  l.  c. ;  Konig,  EiTd.^  I.  c. 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  61 

think,  is  made  clear  by  Sifre  itself,  which  gives  us  to  understand 
that,  had  there  been  no  Point,  we  would  have  to  say  that  Sarah 
did  not  speak  with  reference  to  Hagar  alone  ^  "ID^D  ....  ih^y  but 
with  reference  to  others  also ;  this  is  exactly  what  we  find  among 
the  minority.  It  is,  therefore,  well  nigh  certain  that  the  words 
of  Sifre  simply  imply  that  the  minority  did  not  approve  of  the 
presence  of  the  Nequdah,  and  read  Ti^D^.^ 

70.  Blau — and  after  him  Ginsburg — understands  the  data 
of  Sifre  differently.  He  sees  in  the  opinion  of  the  majority  a 
hint  to  a  reading  nj''D,  and  in  that  of  the  minority  to  □n''J^D ; 
^  Sarah  spoke  only  with  reference  to  Hagar,  i.  e.,  the  text  should 
read,  n^DI  '•^''D  mn''  :d€)W;  others  think  that  she  spoke  with 
reference  to  those  who  caused  strife,  etc.,  i.  e.,  we  should  read, 
Drv:^2)  ""Jin  nin''  ^DBIV^.^  This  interpretation  of  Sifre  would  neces- 
sitate a  change  in  the  placing  of  the  Nequdoth;  for  if  we  read 
r\y^'2  we  should  point  not  only  the  yod  but  also  the  haph,  *  y^^^  \ 
as  these  two  letters  constitute  the  difference  between  the  two 
words ;  if  we  accept  the  reading  of  the  minority,  □n'^J'^D,  the  yod 
should  not  be  dotted  at  all  but  only  the  ha'ph^  ^  "iTD.'  ^  A  deviation 
as  to  the  place  of  the  Points  is  certainly  possible,  and  if  Sifre 
necessitated  the  readings  T\T^  or  Dn''J''ID,  it  could  be  easily  granted ; 
but  as  we  have  tried  to  show,  Sifre  lends  itself  to  another  inter- 
pretation. Besides,  there  is  no  trace  of  such  readings  either 
in  MSS.  or  in  the  versions.  Finally,  it  seems  to  us  that  the 
very  wording  of  Sifre   antagonizes   Blau's   view.       It  tells   us 

"  nnb  n:in  ^y  x^n  "h  nnax  x^ti^ ''.   These  words  nn^D . . .  x^«, 

perfectly  natural  in  our  supposition,  are  at  least  useless  in  Blau's 
hypothesis.  If  attention  had  been  called  to  the  feminine  form 
nj^^D,  it  would  have  been  sufficient  and  more  natural  to  say  simply 
^)n  hv  ^  niOi^tl^,  without  the  exclusive  particle  *i:d^D,  which 
draws  attention  to  a  singular  idea.  Note,  besides,  the  difference 
of  wording  for  the  opinion  of  the  minority. 

^  That  such  is  really  the  meaning  of  Sifre,  is  made  clearer  from  another  passage 
where  E.  Simon  b.  Yochai  opposes  the  view  of  the  majority  ;  see  lower  down  on 
Gen.  XXXIII,  4,  §  85  ;  see  also  the  difference  of  wording  where  alternative  catch- 
words are  given,  v.  g.,  Bemidbar  Kabba  iii,  13,  on  Num.  xxi,  30. 

2  Blau,  MU,  18;  Ginsburg,  Introd.,  323  ff.  ;  Weir,  Hebr.  Text,  57;  Konig, 
Einl.j  p.  32  ;  Kittel,  Biblia  Hebraica  (Leipzig,  1905),  ad  locum. 


62  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

71.  It  is  true  that  in  giving  the  Biblical  passage,  Sifre  reads 
']i''D1  and  not  ']TD1 ;  consequently,  this  document  might  be  sup- 
posed to  place  the  point  on  some  other  letter,  since  its  biblical 
verse  did  not  contain  the  yod.  However,  it  is  most  likely  that 
it  had  in  view  the  commonly  received  text,  in  which  the  yod  was 
found,  and  that  it  left  it  out  precisely  on  account  of  the  view  its 
author  took  of  the  meaning  of  the  Nequdoth, 

The  pointing  of  the  entire  Y'»'J''''D'1  by  some  Biblical  MSS. 
and  Aboth  de  E.  Nathan  (2),  is  evidently  a  mistake ;  all  the 
more,  since  the  explanations  given  of  the  dots  in  the  last  named 
document  are  the  same  as  those  of  other  Jewish  writings  which 
point  only  the  yod.  The  pointing  of  the  first  yod  by  Aboth  de 
K.  Nathan  (1)  is  also  a  deviation  brought  about  by  the  reading 
'^^yyi,  according  to  the  view  of  some  medieval  Rabbis,  mentioned 
in  a  preceding  note.^ 

From  all  this  we  conclude  that  only  the  second  yod  of  Ti^DI 
was  originally  pointed  and  that  the  Nequdah  was  intended  to 
stigmatise  it. 

Genesis  XYIII,  9. 

72.  Sifre  (cp.  Yalqut,  list,  §  722)  leaves  the  place  unde- 
termined; Diqduqe  ha-Te*amim  and  the  Massoretic  list  place  the 
dots  over  vh^  without  specifying  the  exact  letters  that  should  be 
pointed;  Baba  Metsi'a,^  Bereshith  Rabba^  (cp.  Yalqut,  §  82, 
"nOi<''1),  most  MSS.  of  Soferim,*  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (1),  Leqach 
Tob  {ad  hcumy  Sekhel  Tob,«  Bemidbar  Rabba,^  Midr.  ha-Gadol,« 

ip.  60,  n.  6. 
2  87a,  middle. 
^xLViii,  15  (17). 
*vi,  3;  cp.  MuUer,  87. 
»  Ed.  Buber,  84. 
«Ed.  Buber,  26. 

'  Kosenfeld,  D^IDID  nnCtJ?):,  p.  66,  says  that  according  to  Bemidbar  Kabba, 
only  the  waw  of  rP^  is  pointed ;   in  all  the  editions  we  have  consulted,  it  is 

8  Ed.  Schechter,  col.  273. 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  63 

point  i^y  'I,  ^  of  V^h?.  See  also  Rashi^  and  D.  Qimchi.^  Some 
MSS.  of  Soferim,^  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (2),  and  probably  also 
Leqach  Tob  (list),  have  the  dots  over  iTK.  Finally,  one  MS.  of 
Baba  Metsi'a  (Vat.  119),*  a  few  mss.  of  Diqduqe  ha-Te'amim,* 
and  some  Biblical  mss.,^  place  them  over  the  entire  vh^. 

73.  Instead  of  noXil,^  LXX  has  elirev  =  nON''1.  This  read- 
ing is  probably  correct,  for,  in  the  context,  except  v.  5,  the  verb 
is  generally  in  the  singular;  this  is  also  the  reading  of  Kenn. 
18,  75,  132.  Besides,  the  one  who  speaks  in  verse  9,  is  the 
same  as  in  verse  10,  and  in  verse  10,  the  verb  is  in  the  singular. 
The  pointed  vh^  is  found  in  all  versions ;  it  is,  however,  to  be 
noted  that  the  objective  pronoun  is  very  often  omitted  after  the 
verb  in  similar  passages,  and  in  the  context,  is  generally  not 
expressed,  v.  g.,  xviii,  5,  10,  15,  26,  27,  etc.  It  is,  therefore, 
possible  that  vb^  should  have  been  absent  in  some  recensions. 
LXX  has  eTirev  Se  irpo^  avTop,  and  the  Peshitto  cr^.  ^r^Jo.  This, 
however,  does  not  necessarily  suppose  the  presence  of  vbi^y  for 
instead  of  it  we  might  have  1^.  Though  1^  does  not  occur  in 
the  context,  still,  its  presence  in  some  recensions  might  have  been 
due  to  a  homoeoteleuton  with  the  last  syllable  of  )h^^^)  in  the 
preceding  verse,  or,  for  a  word  as  common  as  r?,  to  a  mechanical 
and  unconscious  substitution  of  it  for  V^^.  It  is,  consequently, 
permissible  to  suppose  that  in  some  recensions  the  verse  read 
)h  "li3i<''1,^  or  possibly  .  .  .  "lliDt^^'l,  while  the  one  from  which  our 
present  textus  receptus  has  been  derived  had  V^X  I^IOK"^!. 

74.  The  explanations   given   of  the   Points   in   the   Jewish 


^  On  Gen.  xviii,  9  and  on  Baba  Metsi'a  87a. 

2  On  Gen.  xvni,  9  ;  ed.  Ginzburg,  p.  47b  ;  he  evidently  depends  on  Kashi. 

'MuUer,  o.  c,  87 

*  See  Rabbinowicz,  Diqduqe  Soferim,  Part  xni,  on  Baba  Metsi'a  87a,  p.  260,  n.  \ 

*  Thus  Cod.  Baer  and  Cod.  of  St.  Petersburg,  see  Baer  and  Strack,  p.  46. 
«See  Konigsberger,  MuTK,  13;  Blau,  EinL,  118. 

'  On  the  Textual  Criticism  of  this  passage,  see  Rosenmiiller,  Scholia,  ad  he. ; 
Delitzsch,  Gen.,  298  ;  Dillmann,  Gm.,  262  ;  Miiller,  Soferim,  87  ;  Strack,  o.  c,  p. 
59  ;  Gunkel,  o.  c,  173. 

8  Thus  Hupeden,  in  Vogel  o.  c,  i,  456;  Miiller,  Soferim,  87;  Hamburger, 
BEdJ,  n,  1216;  Dillmann,  Gen.,  ad  locum;  Kittel,  Bib.  Hebr.,  ad  locum. 


64  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  ike 

writings  vary  considerably.^  Sifre  (cp.  Yalqut,  §  722)  repro- 
duced in  Leqach  Tob  (list),  simply  says  that  the  Points  have 
been  placed  ^  because  they  (the  angels)  knew  where  she  (Sarah) 
was.'  This  testimony  is  also  reproduced  in  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan 
(1)  and  Bemidbar  Eabba,  with  the  addition  ^and  still  asked  for. 
her ; '  these  words  not  being  found  in  Sifre  are  not  part  of  the 
primitive  tradition,  and  seem  to  have  been  added  under  the  influ- 
ence of  Baba  Metsi  a,  to  the  effect  that  one  should  inquire  about 
the  wife  of  one's  host. 

Baba  Metsi'a,  87a  (cp.  Midr.  ha-Gadol,  Rashi,^  and  Qimchi),-^ 
although  reproducing  the  data  of  Sifre,  does  not  refer  them  to  the 
Nequdoth,  but  instead,  tells  us  that  K,  "•,  1  of  V^X  are  pointed,  ^  to 
teach  the  conventional  law  that  one  should  inquire  about  the  wife 
of  one's  host.' 

In  Bereshith  Eabba,  R.  Simeon  b.  Eleazer  bases  a  different 
explanation  on  the  dotted  letters  of  vbi^,  viz.  that  the  angels  asked 
Sarah  where  Abraham  was  :  I'lt?  "  where  is  he  ?  "  This  is  found 
substantially  in  Leqach  Tob  (ad  locum),  Sekhel  Tob,  Rashi, 
Yalqut,^  D.  Qimchi,  and  also  in  Midr.  ha-Gadol  as  an  alternative 
explanation. 

That  the  Points  were  placed  for  the  reason  given  by  R.  Simeon, 
is  certainly  not  correct ;  if  such  were  the  reason,  there  is  nothing 
to  prevent  us  from  taking  in  a  word  any  two  or  three  letters  that 
would  give  us  a  desired  meaning  and  pointing  them.  R.  Simeon's 
explanation  is  a  mere  display  of  wit  based  on  letters  pointed  for 
some  other  reason.  Besides,  the  pointing  of  these  three  letters 
in  vhi^  is  certainly  a  mistake ;  for,  neither  as  a  sign  of  a  special 
interpretation,  nor  as  an  indication  of  a  special  spelling,  nor  as  a 
mark  of  their  unexpected  presence,  nor  finally  as  the  expression 
of  a  critical  doubt,  could  the  Points  on  V^N  be  justified.  The 
deviation  is  probably  due  to  the  fact  that  originally  the  Points 

^On  these  explanations,  see  Buxtorf,  Tiberias,  175  ;  Miiller,  Soferim,  87  ;  Blau, 
JfU,  19;  Ginsburg,  Introd.,  324;  Konigsberger,  MuTK,  12  £E.;  Weir,  Hebr. 
Text,  p.  57. 

'  Comm.  on  Gen. ,  xvni,  9. 

3?.  c. 

*S82. 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  65 

were  placed  on  V^N  i"1Dfr<''1,  apparently  with  a  view  to  its  being 
read  1^  ^10K''1.  These  letters  put  together  in  order  to  be  made 
the  basis  of  a  mnemonic  catchword  gave  ""Xl  '  and  where  ? '  This 
would  be  a  good  foundation  for  the  seman  of  Sifre,  which  tells  us 
that  the  Points  have  been  placed  because  the  angels  knew  where 
Sarah  was.  The  immediate  inference  from  this  explanation  is 
that  an  interrogative  particle  ought  to  be  left  out,  since  the  natural 
consequence  of  the  knowledge  of  a  thing,  is  the  uselessness  of 
inquiring  about  it.  This  interrogative  particle  is  found  in  the 
three  letters  '•t^l  'and  where?'  Not  indeed  that  the  angels 
actually  did  not  ask,  since  n''K  follows,  but  simply  to  remind 
the  student  that  the  letters  ),  N,  ''  should  be  cancelled.  Later  on, 
the  order  of  the  three  letters  was  inverted  for  Haggadic  purposes, 
and  they  were  read  Vh?  '  where  is  he  ? '  This  brought  about  the 
further  result  that  the  three  letters  were  taken  from  the  word 
vb^y  in  which  they  occur  in  the  above  order  i^^X.  The  Haggadic 
explanations  of  Baba  Metsi'a  87a — unjustifiable,  as  remarked  by 
the  Tosafist,^  if  X,  ">, ),  of  V^N  were  pointed — would  be  sufficiently 
clear  if  we  point  '•t?")  'and  where?'  since  attention  is  drawn  to 
the  question  of  the  angels.  Of  course  Baba  Metsi'a,  no  more  than 
the  explanations  of  Bereshith  Kabba,  does  not  hint  at  the  spurious 
character  of  the  dotted  letters ;  nor  does  it  give  the  true  reason 
for  their  being  pointed;  it  is  also  the  adaptation  of  an  after- 
thought to  letters  already  pointed,  but  it  is  interesting  to  note 
that,  like  Sifre,  it  suggests  the  pointing  of  an  interrogative  particle. 
We  must  likewise  call  attention  to  the  words  of  Kashi  on  this 
passage,  viz.  that  dotted  words  can  be  made  the  foundation  only 
of  a  Midrashic  interpretation — here  a  conventional  law.  Strictly 
speaking,  these  letters  are  considered  non-existent  in  a  literal 
interpretation  ;  ^  it  is,  however,  very  doubtful  whether  Baba  Metsi'a 
was  guided  by  such  a  principle. 

75.     Another  way  of  accounting  for  the  deviation  as  to  the 
place  of  the  Nequdoth,  is  to  suppose,  as  made  possible  from  Textual 

1  On  Baba  Metsi'a  87a,  catchword  *11p:)  HTiV,   where  it  says  that  the  Points 
should  fall  on  H^X,  to  justify  the  explanation  of  the  Gemarah. 
^  On  Baba  Metsi'a,  87a. 


66  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

Criticism,  that  originally  xh^  was  entirely  pointed,  but  that  on 
account  of  the  height  of  the  Lamed,  the  dots  were  not  preserved 
over  that  letter,  as  they  would  have  produced  an  unsightly  appear- 
ance.^ This  view  finds  support,  as  said  above,  in  a  few  Biblical 
MSS.,  in  a  MS.  of  Baba  Metsi'a,  and  in  some  MSS.  of  Diqduqe  ha- 
Te'amim.  However,  the  reason  given  for  the  supposed  deviation 
is  at  best  very  doubtful,  since  we  find  the  Lamed  pointed  twice  in 
Deuter.  xxix,  28.  The  explanations  of  Baba  Metsi'a — apparently 
given  in  the  MS.  which  points  the  entire  xh^ — certainly  excludes 
the  pointing  'i^^'X'  still  more  than  the  pointing  ^  i^^j^.'  The 
adaptation  of  the  catchword  of  Sifre  to  the  pointing  of  the  entire 
word  would  be  far-fetched  and  unnatural,  and  we  refrain  from 
giving  the  various  attempts  we  have  made  in  that  direction.^ 
Most  likely,  after  the  confounding  of  ''Kl  with  VN,  and  the  point- 
ing of  V''^N,  some  scribe  placed  the  dots  ^ver  the  four  letters,  either 
through  mistake,  or  because  he  was  induced  thereto  by  the  absence 
of  V^K  in  some  biblical  MSS.  Possibly  also,  the  talmudic  teaching 
that  the  angels  did  not  inquire  about  Sarah  except  through  her 
husband  ^  V^h?,'  was  not  without  its  effect  in  producing  the  change ; 
especially  at  a  time,  when  apparently  the  true  meaning  of  the 
Nequdoth  had  been  forgotten,  and  when  they  were  made  the  basis 
of  special  exegesis.^  The  pointing  of  I'l^t^  does  not  seem,  there- 
fore, to  be  original. 

76.  A  third  method  of  placing  the  Nequdoth,  viz.  fv^,  is 
found  in  Leqach  Tob  (list),  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (2),  and  a  few 
MSS.  of  Soferim.  This  pointing  would  furnish  very  good  grounds 
for  the  seman  of  Sifre  and  the  Haggadic  explanations  of  Baba 
Metsi'a,  which,  as  said  above,  suppose  the  pointing  of  an  interro- 

^  Thus  Konigsberger,  MuTK,  13.  Bachya  quoted  by  Konigsberger,  says  that, 
as  the  Lamed  of  VVX  has  already  Zaqeph  Qaton,  there  would  have  been  a  danger 
of  confounding  this  with  the  Nequdah,  and  so  the  latter  was  not  preserved.  This 
cannot  be  true,  for,  before  the  accents  were  introduced  into  the  text,  Baba  Metsi'a 
and  Bereshith  Rabba  pointed  only  N,  "^,  1,  and  in  Ber.  R.  this  tradition  is  already 
referred  to  R.  Simeon  b.  Eleazar  (ii  cent.). 

^  V.  g.,  since  the  angels  knew  where  Sarah  was,  they  had  no  need  of  asking 
anybody,  and  consequently  did  not  ask  Abraham,  I'^bX  =  him. 

^Baba  Metsi'a  87a ;  cp.  Midr.  ha-Gadol,  /.  c,  and  Rabbinowicz,  Diqduqe  Sofer- 
m,  I.  c,  n.  tr. 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  6? 

gative  particle.  This  is  the  tradition  which  is  accepted  as  original, 
by  Blau  ^  and  Ginsburg.^  However,  there  is  nothing  in  this  word 
which  would  deserve  special  attention,  unless  indeed  it  be  pro- 
nounced critically  doubtful  or  spurious.  But  although  Sifre  might 
have  motives  of  its  own,  we  see  no  reason  to  say  that  »TX  should 
be  left  out.  It  is  found  in  all  versions,  and  is  required  by  the 
context.     If  with  Blau  and  Ginsburg  we  cancel  n"'K,  the  verse 

would  read :  ^nt<D  r\:r\  nDN''i  "jntr^K  r\^vj  T6^?  nox^i  "  And  they 

said  to  him,  as  to  Sarah  thy  wife,  and  he  (interrupting)  said : 
behold  she  is  in  the  tent.''  This  is  very  unnatural,  and  the 
answer  of  Abraham  undoubtedly  supposes  a  question  to  have  been 
asked.  The  pointing  of  this  word  was  very  likely  due  to  the 
catchword  of  Sifre  itself,  which  supposes  the  cancelling  of  the 
interrogative  particle ;  after  the  original  pointing  of  ''XI  had  been 
changed  to  VN,  the  most  natural  way  to  account  for  it,  was  to 
transfer  the  dots  from  VX  to  n''X. 

On  the  whole,  it  seems  to  us  more  probable  that  originally 
1,  X,  ''  of  V^x  i"lDX''"l  were  the  letters  pointed,  and  that  the  seman 
of  Sifre  suggests  their  spuriousness. 


Genesis,  XIX,  33. 
^:n»ipni  mjwn  yT  i6)  rr'DK  nx  DDtr;m 

77.  Sifre  tells  us  that  HOlpDI  is  pointed,  "  HOlpDI  hv  "llpJ  ; " 
thus  also  Midr.  Yelamdenu,*  "mpj  noipni,''  Sekhel  Tob,  "*jD^^ 
HDlp^l  bv  "'^'p^  "  J  and  the  Munich  MS.  of  Horayoth ;  ^  thus  also 
Eashi,  "  -npj  nn^'D^  bw  n»ipni,"  ^  and  ry:)r\D  mjriD  on  Bereshith 
Rabba,  Li,  8  (10).     That  every  letter  of  nolpDI  should  be  pointed 

^MU,  19  ff. 

2 Znfrod,  324. 

^  Thus  Mass.  Parva  and  Mass.  Text. 

*See  Aruch  s.  v.  VO,  and  Yalqut  §  86. 

5  Ed.  Buber,  p.  40. 

^  See  Rabbinowicz,  Diqduqe  Soferim,  Part  X,  Horayoth,  p.  32. 

'  Comment,  on  Gen. ,  xix,  33. 


68  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

is  also  the  tradition  supposed  in  some  Biblical  mss.^  Moreover, 
Norzi  insists  that  only  the  second  watv  of  nDlp3%  and  not  the 
other  letters,  should  be  dotted,  thus  implying  that  opinions 
differed.^  Leqach  Tob  (list),  "  Htt'lpDI,"  Leqach  Tob  {ad  locum),^ 
and  Midr.  Mishle,  leave  the  exact  place  undetermined  ;  this  is  also 
the  case  in  the  Massoretic  list  and  in  Diqduqe  ha-Te'amim. 
Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (2)  is  alone  in  pointing  the  two  words 
T^'1^'V^''2'^  n'D'D'tt>'3;  this  is  probably  a  mistake  arising  from 
some  such  rubric  as  is  found  in  Leqach  Tob,  "  HDlpDI  DDDtl^D 
V^j;  "IlpJ  ^'  which  was  construed  as  implying  that  the  two  words 
should  be  pointed.  Horayoth  10b,  Soferim,  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan 
(1),  Bemidbar  Rabba,  Zohar,  Baer's  Diqduqe  ha-Te'amim,  dot 
only  the  second  waw  of  HDlpDI.^  Nazir  23a,  Bereshith  Rabba,^ 
Midr.  ha-Gadol,^  might  all  be  strictly  understood  as  pointing 
the  first  waw  of  HDlp^V  Whatever  may  be  the  true  tradition, 
there  has  certainly  been,  in  some  of  the  above  authorities,  a 
deviation  from  the  original  place  assigned  to  the  Nequdoth ;  this 
is  the  more  certain  since  all  start  from  the  same  fundamental  idea 
in  giving  the  explanations  of  the  Points. 

78.  The  reading  of  our  present  editions  of  the  Bible  is  supported 
by  Sam.  Pent.,  lxx,  Peshitto,  Vulgate,  Targ.  Onkelos.''  However 
the  dotted  noipDl  is  written  defective  in  Kenn,  6,  11,  227,  253. 
In  verse  35,  the  same  word  is  written  defective,  although  a  few 
MSS.,  and  also  the  Sam.  Pent.,  read  it  plene.  There  is  no  apparent 
reason  why  the  same  word  should  be  spelled  differently  in  the 
two  verses.  Hence,  it  is  quite  natural  that  an  attempt  should 
have  been  made  at  harmonizing  them ;  and  while  some  adopted 
the  reading  of  verse  33,  others  preferred  that  of  verse  35.  On 
this  and  similar  cases,  we  should  not  lose  sight  of  the  principle 


^Cp.  Michaelis,  Biblia  Hebr.,  ad  locum;  Blau,  Eird.,  p.  118. 
^  Minchath  Shai,  ad  locum. 
3  Ed.  Buber,  p.  90. 

*Cp.  Minchath  Shai,  and  the  authorities  cited  there  ;   D.  Qimchi,  o.  c,  51a; 
Baal  ha-Turim,  on  Gen.  xix,  33. 
"LI,  8  (10). 

«Ed.  Schechter,  col.  297. 
7  See  Delitzsch,  Gen.,  311 ;  Dillmann,  Gen.,  273 ;  Strack,  o.  c,  p.  64. 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  69 

that,  in  weighing  evidence,  we  should  generally  give  preference 
to  the  defective  orthography  as  against  the  jphne  forms ;  for,  to 
write  a  plene,  defective,  is  a  serious  mistake,  but  not  vice  versa; 
hence,  when  the  scribe  was  in  doubt  as  to  whether  a  word  should 
be  written  plene  or  defective,  he  would  naturally  write  it  plene} 
According  to  this  canon,  even  though  only  a  few  MSS.  exhibit  the 
defective  form  of  riDpm  in  verse  33,  they  should  be  followed ;  in 
any  case,  whether  we  read  HD^IpDI  or  nop:31,  there  are  sufficient 
grounds  to  adrdit  the  existence  of  several  recensions,  some  of 
which  had  it  plene,  others  defective, 

79.  Sifre,  from  which  all  the  other  works  depend  immediately 
or  mediately,  tells  us  that  HDIp^l  is  pointed,  because  Lot  knew 
not  when  his  elder  daughter  lay  down,  but  that  he  knew  when 
she  arose.  It  is  clear  therefore  that  by  placing  the  dots  over 
noipDl,  the  action  that  it  expresses  is  not  to  be  counted  among 
those  of  which  Lot  was  ignorant,  i,  e,  HiDlpDI  should  be  left  out. 
Evidently,  the  ignorance  of  Lot  concerning  any  of  the  actions 
mentioned,  was  not  to  be  assumed,  and  would  not  have  been 
thought  of,  had  it  not  been  positively  asserted  by  the  Biblical 
passage ;  ^  hence,  to  remind  the  student  that  the  word  representing 
any  of  them  was  spurious,  it  was  sufficient  to  say  that  Lot  was 
conscious  of  that  action.  It  is  true  that  we  have  not  found  in 
textual  criticism  any  trace  of  the  absence  of  HDlpDl,  but  Sifre 
may  have  had  reasons  of  its  own  to  pronounce  it  interpolated. 
After  all,  it  is  not  impossible  that  the  HDlpIJT  of  verse  33,  should 
have  been  introduced  from  verse  35,  through  a  homceoteleuton, 
although  no  trace  of  such  a  recension  has  reached  us.^  To  see 
how  far  exegetical  preoccupations  may  have  helped  to  introduce 
JlD^pni,  or  sanction  its  interpolation,  the  reader  is  referred  to  Blau, 
MU,  p.  14. 

80.  That  the  above  is  the  meaning  of  Sifre  would  seem  clear, 

^Cp.  Menachoth  29b,  with  the  remarks  of  Ginsburg,  Introd.,  156  f. 

"  See  the  remark  of  St.  Jerome  above,  p.  4,  n.  6 ;  cp.  Sekhel  Tob,  ed.  Buber, 
p.  40,  after  Ber.  Eabba,  li,  9  (11). 

'  That  n?D1pD1  is  annulled  by  the  Points  is  also  the  opinion  of  Rashi  (on  Gen. 
XIX,  33),  and  of  the  Tosafist  (on  Nazir  23a,  catchword  HTsV).  The  words  of  the 
Tosafist  have  been  wrongly  inserted  into  some  of  the  editions  of  Eashi. 


70  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

were  it  not  for  the  fact  that,  while  the  idea  of  its  catchword  has 
been  generally  preserved  in  the  Jewish  writings,  many  of  them 
explicitly  place  the  Nequdah  only  on  the  second  loaw  of  HDipD^ 
and  others,  perhaps  on  the  first.  Strictly  speaking,  it  is  possible 
that  Sifre  and  the  other  documents  which  tell  us  that  there  are 
Points  over  noipDI,  simply  call  attention  to  the  pointed  word, 
without  specifying  the  exact  letters  over  which  they  should  be 
placed.  Although  such  a  supposition  is  possible  in  itself,  still 
the  catchword  of  Sifre  could  hardly  be  justified  in  that  hypo- 
thesis :  ^  for,  neither  as  real  exegesis,  nor  as  italics,  nor  as  express- 
ing a  critical  doubt  could  the  explanation,  ^because  when  she 
arose  he  knew,'  be  derived  from  the  presence  or  absence  of  the 
single  letter  'waw?  It  seems,  therefore,  beyond  all  prudent  doubt 
that  Sifre  implies  the  condemnation  of  the  entire  niDTpDV  This 
word,  however, — a  remark  that  applies  also  to  ]"inN1,  Num.  iii, 
39,  as  found  in  Bemidbar  Rabba,  and  to  ]1*m^V1,  Num.  xxix,  15, 
— may  have  been  one  of  the  cases  referred  to  by  Rabbi,^  in  which 
a  point  (above  (?))  on  the  beginning  or  first  letter  '  ]^^D^0,'  was 
enough  to  annul  the  entire  word.  By  pointing  the  conjunction  waw, 
HDlpDI  is  placed  out  of  the  context  and  could  easily  be  recognized  as 
spurious.  Accordingly,  while  some  pointed  every  letter,  ^  hblpil,' 
others  were  satisfied  with  placing  the  dot  over  the  conjunctive 
waw  alone,  '  Hi^lpDl,'  and  as  the  palseographical  effect  was  the  same, 
the  seman  was  also  the  same.  As  remarked  above,  some  of  the 
Jewish  sources  can  be  understood  in  that  way.  A  confusion  could 
easily  have  arisen  between  the  two  wawSy  and  the  point  could  have 
been  transferred  from  the  first  to  the  second ;  and  this  all  the 
more,  since  there  were  mss.  in  which  HDlpDl  was  written  defec- 
tive. Starting  from  a  rubric  similar  to  that  found  in  Nazir  23a, 
"niOlpD*!  Y"*)  bv  "llpJ''  =  HDlpni,  some  writings  understood  it  as, 
'riDlpDU^  )'^)  bv  'J;'  and  in  this  latter  form,  it  has  come  down 
to  us  in  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (1)  and  Soferim. 

*  The  least  objectionable  explanation  would  be  to  suppose  that  HTDIpDI  written 
without  the  waw,  would  have  been  marked  '  "IDPI ',  which  for  mnemonic  purposes 
was  referred  to  i'"!*'  Xb  ;  thus  it  would  give  the  impression  that  the  ignorance  of 
Lot  was  not  complete  and  consequently  that  he  knew. 

^  Jer.  Pesachim,  ix,  2. 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch.  71 

Possibly  also,  the  rubric  was  simply  '  V^y '  '  pi  noip3%  which 
became  ^ ')  7V'  "^^Ip^-  Later  on,  the  waw  was  construed  as  a  con- 
struct state  determined  by  HDIp^,  as  above,  SnoipD  '1  hv  H^pl' 
This  was  made  clearer  still  by  the  insertion  of  the  relative  hvj.^ 

81.  As  Sifre  is  the  starting  point  for  all  the  other  explanations 
and  haggadic  amplifications,  we  have  dwelt  purposely  on  its  words. 
It  would  be  useless  to  insist  on  the  other  testimonies,  for  they 
have  no  relation  to  the  meaning  of  the  Nequdoth,  although  they 
were  occasioned  by  the  misapprehension  of  the  "  j;"T'  ilOlpDI ''  of 
Sifre.  They  try  to  account  for  the  knowledge  of  Lot  with  regard 
to  the  niDlpni  (thus,  v.  g,  Midrash  Yelamdenu ;  Sekhel  Tob  after 
Bereshith  Rabba),^  or  to  show  that,  on  account  of  his  know- 
ing when  the  elder  daughter  arose.  Lot  was  responsible  for  his 
incest  with  the  second  daughter  (Nazir  23a,  reproduced  in  Arukh, 
8.  V.  V);  Horayoth  10b,  Midr.  ha-Gadol,^  cp.  Leqach  Tob,  ad 
loGuniy  and  D.  Qimchi).*  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (2),  enlarging  on 
this  last  idea,  concludes  that  since  Lot  was  conscious  when  his 
elder  daughter  arose,  he  must  have  been  conscious  both  of  the 
n^Dti^^  and  HiDlp!}!  in  the  case  of  his  second  daughter.  Midr. 
Mishle  gives  the  explanations  of  Sifre,  but  says  that  the  nJDipDI 
intended  here  is  the  one  found  in  verse  35  in  the  case  of  the 
second  daughter.  This  departure  from  Sifre,  although  the  Rab- 
binical proverb,  ^  rXV2V  Till)^  TTV^V '  is  added,  seems  to  be  due 
to  the  desire  of  sheltering  Lot,  by  protracting  his  ignorance  as 
long  as  possible. 

^  Perhaps  the  deviation  may  have  arisen  from  the  fact  that  the  rubric  gave  the 
number  of  the  Points  "  llp^  'V  =  six  points  ;  this  became  llp^  V''*^  Cp.  M. 
P.  on  Dent,  xxix,  28,  in  some  MSS. ;  see  also  Ba'al  ha-Turim  basing  his  explan- 
ations on  the  numerical  value  of  0.  Again  the  dotted  word  may  have  been 
marked  with  only  one  sign  as  in  Leqach  Tob  (list),  Massoretic  list,  Diqduqe  ha- 
Te'amim  ;  later  on,  only  the  letter  waw,  over  which  the  sign  fell  was  considered  as 
pointed.  Finally,  we  may  be  allowed  to  make  one  further  suggestion,  viz.,  that, 
as  IDn  is  used  to  mark  the  absence  of  a  word  as  well  as  of  a  letter,  n^1p2^  may 
have  been  accompanied  with  the  rubric  minX  mXnDI^D  *!Dn  'missing  in  other 
copies.'  As  IDn  is  the  technical  term  to  designate  a  defective  reading,  it  was 
understood  to  mean  "  rTJO^p^l  is  written  defective  in  other  copies." 

»LI.,  9  (11). 

'Ed.  Schechter,  col.  297. 

*Ccmm.,  51a. 


72  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

In  many  of  these  writings,  the  original  meaning  of  the  Nequdoih 
seems  to  have  been  forgotten,  and  although  the  idea  of  Sifre  is 
mechanically  preserved,  there  are  joined  to  it  purely  Midrashic 
speculations,  often  borrowed  from  documents  in  which  they  were 
not  connected  with  the  points  at  all. 

There  can  therefore  be  but  little  doubt  that  originally  the  entire 
HiD^lpDI  was  pointed,  and  that  the  Nequdoih  was  intended  to 
cancel  it.^ 

Genesis,  XXXIII,  4. 

82.  On  this  verse  most  of  the  sources  explicitly  state,  or 
clearly  suppose,  that  inptl^*"!  is  entirely  pointed;  thus  Bereshith 
Rabba,^  and  after  it.  Shir  ha-Shirim  Rabba,^  Sekhel  Tob,"  D. 
Qimchi,^  and  Yalqut ;  ^  thus  also  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (1  and  2), 
Soferim,^  Baer's  edit,  of  Diqduqe  ha-Te'amim,^  Leqach  Tob  {ad 
loGum),^^  Midr.  Tanchuma,"  Midr.  ha-Gadol.^^  Others  simply 
say  that  *inpti;"'1  is  pointed,  the  obvious  meaning  of  which  is  that 
the  entire  word  is  pointed;  thus  Sifre,  Bemidbar  Rabba,  Midr. 
Mishle ;  '^  cp.  Rashi,i^  Ibn  Ezra,^^  Ba  al  ha-Turim.^^     This  is  also 

^  It  is  not  clear  whether  or  not  the  seman  of  Sifre  implies  also  the  condemnation 
of  n?D1pD1  of  verse  35  ;  cp.  Blau  and  Ginsburg,  II.  cc.  ;  this  is  of  secondary 
importance  for  us,  as  we  treat  only  of  the  '  meaning '  of  the  Nequdoth. 

^  See  the  various  editions  ;  cp.  besides,  Norzi,  Minchath  Shai,  ad  locum  ;  Micha- 
elis,  Biblia ;  Baer,  Genesis,  etc. 

'Lxxvm,  9  (12). 

*  VII,  8  ;  see  the  omission  in  its  reproduction  of  Bereshith  Kabba,  Appendix,  ad 
locum. 

5  Ed.  Buber,  178. 

*Comm.,  ed.  Ginzburg,  74  b. 

T  §  133. 

8Cp.  Miiller,  Soferim,  88. 

®  Baer  and  Strack,  I.  c. 

10  Ed.  Buber,  171. 

"  Ed.  Frankf.  a.  O.  12c. 

12  Ed.  Schechter,  col.  516. 

13  Ed.  Buber,  p.  100. 
1*  On  Gen.  xxxiii,  4. 

15  On  Gen.  xxxiii,  4,  in  Mass.  Bible,  Venice,  1617. 
^Ubid. 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  73 

the  tradition  preserved  in  the  Chinese  mss.  spoken  of  above/  as 
well  as  in  the  note  found  in  some  Greek  mss.  on  this  passage : 
TOy  KaTe(pL\7]o-€v  avTov  oirep  iarlv  '^^paiarrl  ovecra-dKrjy  ev  iravjl 
*^^paLKa>  Bc^Loy  irepiea-TLKrai,  k.  t.  \?  To  this  unanimous  con- 
sent, Leqach  Tob  (list)/  "  in^pll^il,"  and  Diqduqe  ha-Teamim/ 
"  inpU^*'!/'  form  no  exception. 

83.  With  regard  to  the  verse  under  consideration/  all  mss., 
Sam.  Pent.,  Peshitto,  Vulg.,  Targ.  Onkelos,  Targ.  Ps.-Jonathan, 
and  Targ.  Jerus.,  agree  with  the  Massoretic  text.  In  the  Greek 
version  there  is  a  great  deal  of  confusion.  AE  read :  "  koX 
TrpoaeSpa/xev  'Hcrav  et?  avvdvrrjaiv  avrcp^  Kal  ireptXa^oov  avrbv 
i(f>L\rj(r€v  Kal  irpocri'jreaev  iirl  rov  Tpd')(^7]\ov  avTOv  •  koI  e/cXavaav 
a/jL(l)6T€poc ;  ^'  ^  thus  also,  with  slight  variations,  Lucian,^  Com- 
plutensian  edit.,  codic.  mtyz  and  others,  Caten.  Nicephori.^ 

The  editio  Romana,  as  well  as  Holmes  and  Lagarde,^  have  "/cal 
TrpooSpafiev  'YLaav  ....  /cat  jrepiXa^oDV  avTov  irpoa-iireaev  eirl 
Tov  Tpd')(TifK,ov  avTOV  Kal  KaTe<^Ck7)(Tev  avTOV  •  Kal  eKXavorav  a/JLCjyo- 
Tepoi/'  thus  agreeing  with  our  Massoretic  text.  The  editio  Aldina 
reads :  "  Kal  TrepiXaffcov  avTov  i(f)L\7](r€v  Kal  irpocrerrea-ev  iwl  rov 
Tpd')(7fKov  avTOv  Kal  Kare^iXijaev  avrov  •  Kal  eKXavaav  aficfyoTepoc.^' 
This  is  also  found  in  cod.  Sarravianus  (G.  Holmes,  iv),  but 
with  the  obelus  before  e(\>C\T]crev :  "  — ecftLXrjcreVy  Kal  .  .  .  .  "  ^^ 
The  obelus  is  also  preserved  in  Grabe's  edit.,  which  besides, 
prints  ^ Kal  KaTe(^i\7)(yev '  in  smaller  characters." 

From  what  precedes  it  is  clear  that  the  variations  are  due  to 
Origen's  Hexapla.  The  ancient  reading  of  LXX  was  the  one 
found  in  AE  etc.,  as  above.     Origen's  revised  text,  in  order  to 

I  See  p.  20,  n.  1. 

^  Field,  Hexapla,  ad  locum,  n.  6. 
^Ed.  Padua,  I.  c. 
*  Venice  Bible,  1517,  I.  c. 

^On  the  Textual  Criticism  of  this  passage,  see  Delitzsch,  Gen.,  407  ;  Dillmann, 
Gen.,  359;  Ball,  Gen.,  91. 
®  See  Swete,  0.  T.  in  Greek,  ad  locum. 
'  Lagarde,  Pentat.  Gr. ,  ad  locum. 

^Lagarde,  Genesis,  134;  Holmes,  Vetus  Test.  Graec.,  ad  locum. 
^  Lagarde  and  Holmes,  II.  cc. 
^°  Holmes  and  Lagarde,  II.  cc. 

II  Holmes,  I.  c. 


74  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

harmonize  the  Greek  with  the  Hebrew,  read :  "  koX  irepLka^ibv 
avTov — e(f)i\riaev  Kal:  irpoaeireo-ev  iirl  tov  Tpd)(7]\ov  avTOv  ^  Kal 
KaT€(l>L\7](rev  avrov :  koI  €K\avaav  a/jLcfyorepot  (see  Cod.  Sarravi- 
anus).  Later  on,  some  scribes  reproduced  the  Origenian  text,  with- 
out the  critical  signs,  and  this  is  the  text  of  the  eclitio  Aldina,  etc. 
The  editio  Romana  left  out  the  obelized  words  and  thus  came  into 
harmony  with  Hebrew.  There  is  no  doubt,  therefore,  that  the  old 
Greek  version  had  ^TrepiXa^obv  e(f>i\r)(yeVj  and  this  is  further 
borne  out  by  the  Sahidic  Coptic  version.^  The  Bohairic  omits 
irepCKa^ibv? 

84.  There  must  have  been  consequently  at  least  two  Hebrew 
recensions  on  this  verse,  one  of  which  had  inptL^'"!  iripDn*"!,  from 
which  Ixx  was  made;  and  the  other  '1)1  ^D""*!  inpDrT'l  as  is  found 
in  the  Massoretic  text.  The  reading  suggested  by  Ixx  is  more 
natural,  and  is  accepted  by  Bacher^  and  Ball.*  The  two  ideas 
'to  embrace  and  kiss'  occur  together  in  Gen.  xxix,  13  (Cp.  xlviii, 
10),  whereas  we  never  find  the  order  '  to  fall  on  the  neck,  kiss, 
and  cry.'  ^  The  reading  IDD*"!  ^r\'^W^  ni^llJ  bv  ^©""T  seems  to  have 
originated  from  the  combination  of  two  expressions,  viz.  *  to  kiss 
and  cry'  (Gen.  xxix,  11,  xlv,  15;  cp.  1,  1)  and  'to  fall  on  the 
neck  and  cry'  (Gen.  xlv,  14;  xlvi,  29);  hence,  'to  fall  on  the 
neck,  kiss,  and  cry.' 

We  may  further  inquire  whether  inptl^^'l  was  transferred  from 
a  supposedly  original  place  after  iripDIT'l,  or  simply  interpolated. 
While  admitting  that  ^r\^W^  is  more  natural  after  iripDiT'l,  we 
cannot  but  wonder  at  the  unexpected  presence  of  so  many  marks 
of  friendship.  Would  it  be  too  rash  a  conjecture  to  say  that 
inp^''!  is  spurious,  and  has  been  interpolated  after  the  manner 
referred  to  above  ?  Later  on,  some  scribe  noticing  the  unnatural 
place  of  inptl^'"!,  might  have  transferred  it  to  a  less  objectionable 
and  not  unparallelled  place  after  inp^rT^I. 

85.  Coming  now  to  the  explanation  of  the  Nequdoth  in  the 

^  Ed.  Ciasca,  Sacrorum  Bibliorum  Fragmenta  Oopto-Sahidica,  p.  33. 
'^  Ed.  Lagarde,  Pent.  Koptisch,  ad  locum. 
3  Quoted  in  Blau,  MU,  23,  n.  1. 
*  Genesis,  ad  locum,  and  p.  91. 
^  Still,  see  Luke,  xv,  20. 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  75 

Jewish  writings/  we  must  first  take  into  account  the  data  of  Sifre. 
It  tells  us  that  )r\pW"^)  has  been  pointed,  '  because  Esau  did  not 
kiss  him  (Jacob)  with  his  whole  heart.'  ^  This  catchword  cannot 
be  exegetical,  for  the  sincerity  of  any  of  the  actions  of  Esau  might 
have  alike  been  questioned,  and  consequently  the  word  represent- 
ing that  action  might  have  been  pointed.  If  inpU^''1  alone  is 
pointed,  there  must  have  been  some  special  reason,  which  did  not 
exist  for  the  others.  According  to  Sifre,  if  the  dots  had  not  been 
placed  on  this  word,  we  should  conclude  that  Esau  had  kissed 
Jacob  sincerely ;  but  their  presence  so  affects  "inp^''!,  that  we  are 
led  to  think  the  contrary.  Therefore  Rabbi  Simon  b.  Yochai,^ 
who  thinks  that  Esau  kissed  Jacob  sincerely,  does  not  give  an 
alternative  explanation  of  the  points,  but  denies  their  very  right 
to  existence.  ^ 

86.  Sifre  seems  to  lay  special  stress  on  the  idea  of  sincerity, 
since  it  is  the  sincerity  of  the  kiss  and  not  its  existence,  that  is 
questioned ;  ^  consequently,  though  "]np^''T  is  really  one  of  the 
actions  of  Esau,  we  must  deal  with  it  in  such  a  way,  as  to  make 
it  appear  as  an  insincere  mark  of  affection.  If  such  be  really  the 
meaning  of  Sifre,  we  see  but  one  way  of  justifying  this  explana- 
tion. In  our  Massoretic  editions,  the  order  of  the  actions  of  Esau 
is  unexpected  both  idiomatically,  since  we  never  find  the  sequel 
^  to  embrace,  fall  on  the  neck,  kiss,  and  cry,'  and  naturally,  for,  ^  to 
kiss,'  should  precede  and  not  follow  the  ^falling  on  the  neck.' 
The  place  assigned  here  to  inpti''"!  seems  to  lay  special  emphasis 

1  See  Buxtorf,  Tiberias,  176  ;  Miiller,  Soferim,  88  ;  Blau,  MU,  22  ff. ;  Konigs- 
berger,  MuTK,  16  ff.  ;  Ginsburg,  Introd.,  325;  Weir,  Hebr.  Text,  58;  cp. 
Bacher,  Ag.  d.  Tann,  ii,  116. 

2  This  testimony  is  reproduced  in  Bemidbar  Kabba,  I.  c;  Leqach  Tob  (list), 
and  Yalqut  §  722. 

3  Aboth  de  R  Nathan  (1  and  2),  Bereshith  Kabba,  etc.,  have  Simon  b.  Eleazar. 
*  Bereshith  Kabba  seems  to  have  understood  the  words  of  K.  Simeon  as  the  true 

explanations  of  the  Points,  for  the  Nequdoth  are  made  to  teach  that  the  kiss  was 
sincere  ;  in  Yalqut,  Bereshith  Kabba  is  corrected,  and  made  to  agree  with  Sifre, 
"  IDV  VdD  Ip^'::  N'bt:;,"  but  this  correction  is  not  critically  correct,  cp.  above,  §  58. 
Leqach  Tob  (list)  and  Rashi  (Comm.  on  Genesis,  xxxiii,  4),  also  understand  the 
words  of  K.  Simeon,  as  an  alternative  explanation  of  the  Points. 
5  This  idea  of  sincerity  is  insisted  upon  by  most  of  the  later  Jewish  writings. 


76  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

on  it ;  after  Esau  had  fallen  on  the  neck  of  Jacob,  we  would 
expect  him  to  cry,  but  not  to  kiss  him.  It  would  seem,  therefore, 
that  Esau  must  have  had  a  special  and  deliberate  intention  to 
kiss  Jacob  at  that  moment ;  and  inp^''1  in  that  place  has  all  the 
characteristics  of  a  real  act  of  love.  This  is  at  the  basis  of  the 
view  of  R.  Simon,  who  objects  to  the  pointing  of  this  word.  The 
other  actions  of  Esau  coming  in  their  regular  order  were  con- 
sidered as  mere  formalities,  and  might  be  co-existent  with  feelings 
of  enmity ;  hence,  R.  Simon  says  that  in  the  beginning  Esau  was 
hostile  to  Jacob,  but  at  that  moment  his  dispositions  changed  and 
he  kissed  him  sincerely.  The  majority,  by  reading  a  text  where 
inpti;''")  came  after  inp^n"'"!,  as  in  the  Septuagint,  did  away  with  the 
emphasis  which  is  laid  on  it  in  the  Massoretic  text,  and  at  the 
same  time,  made  possible  the  explanation  that  Esau  did  not  kiss 
Jacob  sincerely.  This  explanation,  taking  into  account  the  place 
of  a  word  as  a  foundation  for  interpretation,  is  generally  foreign 
to  Sifre,  but  as  has  been  remarked,  the  passage  of  Sifre  is  probably 
only  a  list  of  mnemonic  formulas,  and  in  such  a  system,  the  above 
method  has  nothing  to  surprise  us. 

87.  The  subsequent  Jewish  writings  soon  misunderstood  the 
meaning  of  Sifre,  enlarged  upon  the  idea  of  sincerity,  and  adapted 
to  the  Points  still  further  Haggadic  interpretations.  Apparently 
starting  from  the  words  of  R.  Simeon,  viz.  that  Esau  was  hostile 
to  Jacob  before  he  kissed  him,  some  say,  with  a  play  on  the 
words,  that  he  did  not  come  to  kiss  him  ^  Iptl^J^ '  but  to  bite  him 
*  ^^XD:h '  and  further  add  that  the  neck  of  Jacob  was  turned  into 
marble,  that  Esau  cried  on  account  of  his  teeth  and  Jacob  on 
account  of  his  neck ;  see  Bereshith  Rabba,  reproduced  in  Leqach 
Tob  (ad  loGum)j  Shir  ha-Shirim,  Sekhel  Tob,  D.  Qimchi,  Yalqut ; 
see  also  Midr.  Tanchuma,  and  after  it,  Midr.  ha-Gadol  with  still 
more  additions.  This  idea  is  also  at  the  basis  of  the  rendering 
given  by  Targum  Jon.  and  Targ.  Jer.,  for,  although  they  trans- 
late '  he  kissed  him,^  they  inconsistently  add  that  Esau  cried  on 
account  of  his  teeth  and  Jacob  on  account  of  his  neck.^  As  is 
self-evidenl,   these    speculations  and  the  still   more  foreign  data 

^  Compare  the  Origenian  note  referred  to  above,  p.  4,  n.  6. 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  77 

of  Midr.  Mishle  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  meaning  of  the 
Nequdoth} 

88.  In  what  precedes,  we  have  assumed  that  the  idea  of 
sincerity  was  the  one  brought  into  prominence  by  Sifre,  but  we 
are  not  entirely  satisfied  that  it  is  so.  After  all,  what  Sifre  has  in 
view  might  not  be  the  idea  of  the  sincerity  of  the  kiss,  but  its 
existence.  This  is  the  view  taken  by  Blau,  who  claims  that  the 
words  ^'d7  ^D3  after  Ipti;^  ^^12)  in  the  catchword  of  Sifre  are  an 
addition  not  found  in  the  early  tradition.^  The  latter,  however,  is 
doubtful,  as  these  words  are  found  in  the  second  half  of  the 
catchword,  and  their  presence  there  does  not  seem  to  be  objection- 
able. Although  we  consider  these  two  words  genuine,  still  the 
emphasis  may  not  be  laid  on  them ;  they  may  have  been  added 
simply  in  order  to  help  the  memory  in  remembering  the  main  idea 
better,  and  may  be  but  an  echo  of  the  scholastic  discussion  that 
took  place  on  that  verse.^  Everything  in  the  antecedents  of  Esau 
tended  to  show  that  he  would  not  befriend  Jacob,  but  on  the 
contrary  would  be  hostile  to  him.  Of  all  the  actions  of  Esau 
mentioned  in  this  passage,  there  is  but  one  which  from  its  very 
nature  is  an  act  of  love,  viz.  inplL^''1 ;  the  others,  as  we  find  in  the 
explanations  of  this  verse  by  the  Midrash,  could  have  taken  place 
for  different  motives.  In  view  of  this  fact,  would  it  not  be 
enough  to  assert  that  the  kiss  is  said  by  Sifre  to  lack  an  essential 
quality,  viz.  sincerity,  in  order  to  convey  to  the  memory  of  the 
student,  that  Esau  did  not  kiss  Jacob  at  all?  This  would  also 
sufficiently  explain  the  answer  of  the  minority,  viz.  that  although 
Esau  was  hostile  to  Jacob,  still  his  dispositions  changed  and  he 
kissed  him  sincerely,  i,  e.  although  Esau  was  not  expected  to  have 
the  feelings  implied  in  inp^*"!,  still,  etc. ;  hence  the  genuineness  of 
inpTL'''1  is  vindicated.  The  absence  of  inpil^i*)  or  at  least  its  critical 
doubtfulness,  would  go  far  to  explain  how  it  became  possible  to 
substitute  TO3  for  ptl^l  On  this,  see  especially  Pirqe  de  E.  Eliezer, 
Ch.  37  towards  the  end :    "  )nDlV^)  i6t^  )r\pw^)  )ntf:yip  ^"ln  ^K.'' 

1  See  Buber,  Midr.  Mishle,  p.  100,  n.  23. 

2  MU,  23. 

^  That  there  was  a  discussion  on  this  passage,  is  evident  from  Sifre  itself,  where 
two  opinions  are  recorded. 


78  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

The  fact  that  later  Jewish  writings  have  insisted  on  the  sincerity 
of  Esau's  kiss  could  hardly  be  made  an  objection  against  this 
view,  as  they  may  have  built  their  opinion  on  an  expression 
merely  intended  by  Sifre  as  an  incidental  remark. 

In  any  case,  we  can  conclude  with  great  probability  that  the 
Points  were  intended  to  cancel  inp^''') ;  it  is  to  be  noted  that 
even  if  inplt'''l  were  not  in  its  proper  place,  the  Points  would  not 
necessarily  indicate  a  transposition  as  such ;  they  simply  stigma- 
tize the  word  as  it  stands  ;  whether  it  had  to  be  inserted  elsewhere, 
must  be  judged  on  different  grounds. 


Genesis  XXXYII,  12. 

89.  If  we  except  Sifre,  which,  after  quoting  the  Biblical 
verse,  has  the  vague  expression,  "  vhv  "'"'pJ/'  ^^^  ^^^  Oxford  MS. 
of  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (1)  ^  which  points  the  Ayin  of  r\)V^h  — 
a  mistake  arising  probably  from  the  fact  that  some  read  the  Bibli- 
cal verse  '')y\  DM^^b  instead  of  Diy*!^  —  all  the  other  Jewish 
sources  explicitly  state  that  n^?  is  pointed.  Thus,  Bereshith 
Rabba,^  (Cp.  D.  Qimchi^  and  Yalqut^)  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan 
(1  and  2),  Soferim,  Midr.  Mishle,  Leqach  Tob  (list,  n'K,  and 
ad  locum ^)  Sekhel  Tob,^  Diqduqe  ha-Te'amim,  Bemidbar  Rabba, 
Midr.  ha-Gadol ;  ^  thus  also  Rashi.® 

90.  The  pointed  Dhf,  particle  of  direction,  is  of  such  a  nature 
that  it  can  be  rendered  only  in  the  other  Semitic  languages.     It  is 

^  Thus  various  editions ;   cp.  Norzi,  Minchath  Shai ;   Michaelis,  Biblia ;  Baer, 
Genesis ;  Ginsburg,  etc. 
2  Schechter,  p.  100,  n.  24. 
'lxxxiv,  13  (12). 
*Comm.,  p.  79  a. 
6  §§141  and  722. 
«Ed.  Buber,  p.  188. 
'Ed.  Buber,  p.  217. 
8  Ed.  Schechter,  col.  561. 
*  Comm.  ad  locunij  in  Venice  Bible,  1617. 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pefniaieuch.  79 

found  in  the  Sam.  Pent.,  and  the  corresponding  sign  is  also  found 
in  the  Targum  Onkelos,  but  it  is  omitted  in  the  Peshitto,  where 
the  Hebrew  nt<  is  generally  rendered  by  ^  ,  and  seldom  by 
tw  }  The  absence  of  the  particle  in  Syriac  makes  it  probable 
that  the  text  from  which  it  was  translated  had  not  the  HK ;  for, 
its  presence  in  the  original  would  have  been  a  strong  inducement 
for  the  Syriac  translator  to  put  it  also  in  the  Syriac  text  j  all  the 
more,  since  it  is  quite  customary  to  use  it  in  similar  cases.  How- 
ever, riN  in  this  passage  is  according  to  Hebrew  usage,  which 
generally  admits  of  the  particle  before  the  accusative  when  it  is 
determined.^  Probably  it  was  left  out  in  some  recensions  to  pre- 
vent misapprehension  of  the  sense,  and  possible  confusion  with 
xxxvii,  2,  where  DN  occurs  with  a  different  meaning.^ 

91.  Sifre  gives  as  reason  for  the  Points  on  this  passage,^  that 
the  brothers  of  Joseph  ^  went  to  Sechem  only  to  feed  themselves,' 
as  against  the  Biblical  verse  which  says  that  they  went  to  feed 
their  father's  flocks.  Some,  like  Sekhel  Tob,  see  in  this  the 
application  of  the  haggadic  rule  of  Nachum  of  Gimzo,  ^''Dl,' 
and  say  that  they  (Joseph's  brothers)  went  to  feed  wiih^  DK,  the 
flocks.  This  is  altogether  arbitrary,  and  foreign  to  the  idea  of 
Sifre ;  many  other  words  could,  and  apparently  should,  have  been 
pointed,  had  the  Points  been  designed  to  call  attention  to  a  special 
exegetical  interpretation  of  the  so-called  superfluous  words.  The 
catchword  of  Sifre  leads  us  to  infer  that  if  there  had  been  no 
points  on  this  passage  we  would  conclude  that  the  Patriarchs 
went  to  feed  the  flocks  of  their  father,  but  that  on  account  of  the 
Nequdoth,  they  went  to  feed  only  themselves.  Arguing  on  these 
lines  Blau  ^  and  Ginsburg  ®  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  whole 
clause  Dn''3t<  ]t^)i  HK  should  be  left  out,  for,  then  and  only  then, 
is  it  possible  to  say  that  they  did  not  go  to  feed  their  father's 

^See  Duval,  Grammaire  Syriaque,  p.  325;  'N oldeke,  Syrische  Grammatik  (2d. 
edit.),  p.  218  5. 

'^See  Gesenius-Kautzsch,  Hebr.  Gramm.,  §  117. 

'  See  Muller,  Soferim,  88. 

*0n  this  passage  see  Buxtorf,  Tiberias,  177;  Muller,  Soferim,  88;  Blau,  MUy 
23  f.;  Ginsburg,  Introd.,  325  ;  Konigsberger,  MuTK,  18  ;  Weir,  Hebr.  Text,  59. 

^MU,  I.  c. 

^Introd.,  I.  c. 


80  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

flocks  but  themselves,  ^.  e.  ri)V'^b  should  be  left  without  an  object, 
and  then  it  can  mean  'to  feed'  (themselves);  cp.  Is.,  v,  17*;  xi, 
7 ;  Ixv,  25,  etc.  The  cancelling  of  this  clause  would  make  this 
verse  parallel  with  verses  13  and  16.  In  that  case,  the  Nequdoth 
should  be  placed  not  only  on  nx  but  also  on  Dn''DJ<  ]XU.  This 
is  in  itself  possible  and  may  have  been  the  reading  of  some 
recensions ;  moreover,  as  Sifre  does  not  give  the  exact  place  of 
the  Nequdoth,  it  leaves  us  free  to  point  also  DiTSN  ]t<2i,  if  this  is 
necessitated  by  its  catchword.  However,  there  is  such  a  perfect 
agreement  between  the  various  Jewish  documents  with  regard 
to  the  pointing  of  Db?  alone,  that  it  creates  a  very  strong  pre- 
sumption in  favor  of  this  tradition.  In  our  present  text  ]XJi 
DrT'^X  is  necessarily  the  object  of  niyi^,  on  account  of  the  connec- 
tive particle  D^ ;  by  suppressing  nx  we  make  possible  a  different 
construction,  viz.  DDII^D  nr\^2^  ]b^)i  .mj;n^  ):h"')  'they  went  to 
feed  (themselves),  while  their  father's  flocks  were  in  Sechem.'  ^ 
We  do  not  mean  that  even  after  the  suppression  of  ni<,  it  would 
be  correct  to  translate  the  verse  in  that  way,  but  such  a  rendering 
might  be  enough  to  remind  the  student  that  HK  was  spurious. 
It  seems  therefore  preferable  to  accept  the  universal  Jewish 
tradition, — in  this  case  seemingly  original, — according  to  which 
only  DN  is  to  be  pointed  and,  as  shown  by  Sifre,  cancelled. 

92.  The  seman  of  Sifre  has  been  accurately  preserved  in 
Bereshith  Rabba  and  Leqach  Tob  (list).  It  is  also  found,  but 
with  paraphrastic  additions,  in  Leqach  Tob  (ad  locum),  Sekhel  Tob, 
and  Midr.  ha-Gadol ;  see  also  D.  Qimchi,  explaining  Bereshith 
Rabba.^  The  clause  ]XDljy  T\^  m^^^  disappears  entirely  in  Aboth 
de  R.  Nathan  (2),  and  is  replaced  by  'm  "]1  n:  [D^K''::d]  niOKD. 
The  seman  of  Sifre  is  also  modified  in  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (1), 
reproduced  in  Bemidbar  Rabba  ;  for,  although  it  says  that  Jacob's 
sons  did  not  go  to  feed  his  flocks,  still  it  omits  the  clause  that 
'  they  were  feeding  themselves,'  and  instead,  gives  mim^^l  ^1Dt<^ 
mncnn^l.^      Accordingly,  the  opposition  is  no  longer  between 

^  See  the  Comm.  on  Kashi,  D^^DDn  '^DSt^,  quoted  in  Konigsberger,  p.  19,  n.  1. 


H.  c. 


^  It  is  evident  that  the  author  of  that  recension  has  misunderstood  ''  p5ii?  nii?")^," 
and  replaced  it  by  what  he  considered  to  be  its  equivalent. 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  81 

feeding  the  flocks  (the  verse  without  the  points)  and  '  feeding 
themselves '  (the  verse  with  the  points),  but  between  feeding  the 
flocks  and  eating,  etc.,  which  would  rather  suggest  the  doubtful 
character,  not  of  n«  or  urVl^  ]^^  Hh?,  but  of  myi^  itself. 
The  deviation  of  Ab.  de  R.  Nathan  (1)  is  also  found  in  Midr. 
Mishle,  with  the  further  amplifications,  introduced  apparently  to 
safeguard  the  honor  of  the  Patriarchs,  that  ^  since,  while  they  went 
to  eat  and  drink,  they  secured  (through  Joseph)  nourishment  for 
the  world,  how  much  more  would  they  have  done  so,  if  they  had 
gone  to  the  teaching  of  the  Torah/  All  this  passage  of  Midr. 
Mishle  has  been  substantially  incorporated  into  Cod.  Baer  of 
Diqduqe  ha-Te'amim.^  It  is  noteworthy  however,  that  the  main 
idea  of  Sifre,  that  the  brothers  of  Joseph  were  not  feeding  the 
flocks  of  their  father,  has  been  preserved  in  all  the  subsequent 
traditional  literature,  and  underlies  all  the  additions  and  changes. 


Num.  Ill,  39. 

93.  Most  Jewish  writings  correspond  to  the  Massoretic  tra- 
dition :  Bekhoroth  4a,  Soferim,  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (1  and  2), 
Leqach  Tob  {ad  locum),^  Midr.  Mishle,  Baer's  Diqduqe  ha- 
Te'amim ;  ^  cp.  Rashi,^  Albo,^  Misrachi.^  Bemidbar  Rabba  and  a 
MS.  of  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (1)  ^  point  only  the  waw  of  y\n^S ',  this 
is  probably  a  mistake  arising  from  the  abbreviated  rubric  of  Sifre, 

. . .  -.  t6w  Ir^V^v  "lyj  [)nn]'Ni  = ^bvj  bv  "i^^  P'"'^''  ^^  ^'^^ ' 

or,  as  said  above,  the  mistake  may  be  due  to  the  fact  that  a  point 


^  See  Baer  and  Strack,  o.  c. ,  p.  46. 

^  See  various  editions. 

5 Ed.  Padua,  Levit.  Num.,  p.  168. 

*  Baer  and  Strack,  p.  46. 

^Comm.  on  Num.  iii,  39. 

^ Sefer  Jqqarim,  III,  22  (end),  transl.  Schlessinger,  p.  323. 

"^  Quoted  in  Norzi,  Minchath  Shai,  ad  locum. 

sSchechter,  p.  100,  n.  25. 


82  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

on  the  first  letter  was  considered  by  some  as  sufficiently  affecting 
the  entire  word.^  Sifre,  as  usual,  leaves  the  place  undetermined ; 
Leqach  Tob  (list)  Diqduqe  ha-Te'amim,  Massoretic  list,  place  the 
dots  over  ]1'nxi,  but  are  silent  as  to  whether  every  letter  of  the 
word  should  be  pointed. 

94.  The  Sam.  Pent,  and  version,  the  Peshitto,  as  well  as 
Kennic.  1,  193,  226,  439,  610,  612,  624  and  de  Rossi  47,  and 
first  hand  2,  185,  omit  the  pointed  ]"inxi.  Judging  from  the 
context,  the  omission  of  I'lnXI  is  in  conformity  with  verses  5, 
11,  14,  16,  40,  42,  44.  Moses  alone  receives  the  command  to 
number  the  sons  of  Levi,  14  and  15,  and  this  he  alone  seems  to 
have  done,  16.  Hence,  ]^nN1  is  certainly  suspicious  and  is  pro- 
nounced interpolated  by  many  scholars.^  Its  introduction  can  be 
accounted  for  from  the  fact  that,  according  to  other  passages 
(Num.  iv,  34,  37,  41,  etc.),  Aaron  actually  took  part  in  the 
numbering.  Probably  some  scribe  introduced  ]inX1  in  the 
margin  to  remind  the  reader  of  that  fact,  and  from  there  it 
passed  into  the  text  proper ;  the  mistake  was  all  the  more  likely 
to  be  made,  since  Moses  and  Aaron  are  so  often  mentioned 
together.  Be  this  as  it  may,  there  are  clear  traces  of  various 
recensions  in  some  of  which  y]r\H)  was  not  to  be  found. 

95.  Sifre  tells  us  that  the  presence  of  the  Nequdoth  is  due 
to  the  fact  that  "  ]^:i:in  p  ]nnx  n\-l  X^ '' ;  ^  that  y:ii2n  means  '  the 
numbering,'  in  the  active  sense,  and  not  ^  the  numbered,'  is  made 
evident  from  the  catchword  of  Sifre  which  implies  that  if  ]in^) 
had  not  been  pointed  Aaron  would  have  been  ]*'JDn  ]D  ;  this,  in  the 
Biblical  verse  to  which  Sifre  refers,  can  be  true  only  of  the  action 
of  numbering  and  not  of  being  numbered.  Accordingly,  Aaron 
should  not  be  associated  with  Moses  in  this  passage,  and  hence 
Xir\^)  should  be  left  out.     This  explanation  is  preserved  in  Aboth 

1  See  above,  §  80. 

2  On  the  Text  Criticism,  see  Houbigant,  Notae  Criticae,  p.  153 ;  Vogel,  Lud, 
Cappelli  Criticae  Sacra,  i,  457  ;  Strack,  Biicher  Genesis  .  .  .  Num. ,  378  ;  Baentsch, 
Ex.  Lev.  Num.  J  p.  460. 

^  On  the  Jewish  explanations,  see  Buxtorf,  Tiberias,  p.  177  ;  Miiller,  Soferim, 
88;  Blau,  MU,  9fT.;  Konigsberger,  MuTK,  20;  Ginsburg,  Introd.,  328;  Weir, 
Hebr.  Text,  59. 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  83 

de  E.  Nathan  (1),  Midr.  Mishle,  Leqach  Tob  (list),  and,  with 
the  variations  mentioned,  in  Bemidbar  Rabba.^  Leqach  Tob 
(ad  locum)    gives   a   variant    for    the    meaning    of   the    Points : 

This  has  all  the  appearance  of  a  Massoretic  note  marking  a 
peculiarity  of  the  Biblical  verse,  but  it  may  be  an  echo  of  some 
former  tradition  according  to  which  linxi  would  have  been 
introduced  on  the  strength  of  iv,  34,  etc.     Bekhoroth  4a  reads : 

—  )nnK  bv  lip:)  no^  N''jm  vp^^b  n^  y^:ii2  init<D  rvn  i^hw  pnxi 

Y^^'O  )r))^2  iTH  ^blV ;  it  therefore  understands  ]''3»n  in  the  sense 
that  Aaron  was  not  among  the  numbered,  and  this  is  the 
meaning  put  on  this  Talmudic  passage  by  Rashi^  and  the 
Tosafist;^  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (2)  follows  the  same  tradition, 
"  nn^ltr^D  WOV  jinx  rvnii;  ^1D\'^  The  rendering  that  Aaron  was 
not  among  the  numbered  Levites,  is  evidently  a  further  interpre- 
tation of  the  rubric  of  Sifre,  "  l''JDn  ]D  l^HK  rvn  t<^It;"  and 
shows  that  already  at  the  time  of  the  Talmud,  the  true  purpose 
of  the  Points  had  been  somewhat  confused.  If  ]"int<1  had  been 
pointed  because  Aaron  was  not  among  the  numbered,  we  do  not 
see  why  l^nNI  of  verse  iii,  39,  should  have  been  chosen,  rather 
than  the  same  word  in  iii,  38.  The  doubtful  character  of  ]"int?1 
was  not,  however,  without  some  influence  on  the  explanation  that 
Aaron  was  not  one  of  the  numbered. 

It  is  consequently  beyond  doubt  that  ]nnX1  had  been  declared 
at  least  critically  doubtful,  and  that,  as  a  consequence,  dots  were 
placed  over  every  letter  of  the  word ;  although,  as  an  equivalent, 
some  may  have  been  satisfied  in  pointing  only  the  conjunctive 


iBlaii  reads  Bemidbar  Rabba  "j^^^DH  1?2  inX  n^n  Hb^  b}?,  which  would  refer  to 
the  numbered  ;  this  is  found  in  the  Venice  edition,  1545.  The  difference  comes 
from  the  abbreviation  ''N  which  is  actually  found  in  the  Amsterd.  editions  of 
1641  and  1725. 

*  On  Bekhoroth  4a  ;  see  also  Comm.  on  Num.  iii,  39. 

'  On  Bechoroth  4a,  catchword  ]"ir!X1. 


84  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 


Num.  IX,  10. 

w€):b  Nioto  n^T  ^D  w^tn  w^^  I'o^b  ^xn^^  ^iiD  b^  nm 

"i:i  npnn  "]"n3  i« 

97.  The  Massoretic  text  has  the  Nequdah  on  the  He  of  Hpni. 
This  is  also  the  place  assigned  to  it  by  Sifre  (cp.  Yalqut,  §  722), 
M.  Pesachim,  ix,  2  (cp.  Arukh,  s.  v.  "ipJ),  Jer.  Pesachim,  ix,  2, 
Tosefta  Pesachim,  viii,  3,  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (1),^  Soferim, 
Leqach  Tob  (list  and  ad  locum),^  Diqduqe  ha-Te'amim,  Rashi,* 
Ba'al  ha-Turim.^  Zohar^  and  Midr.  Mishle  leave  the  place 
undetermined,  while  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (2)  and  some  mss.'' 
point  every  letter  of  Hpni.  Finally,  Bemidbar  Rabba  and  the 
Oxford  MS.  of  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  ^  (1)  point  the  Cheth  of  npn'n ; 
the  pointing  of  the  Cheth  is  evidently  a  mistake  arising  from  the 
similarity  and  confusion  between  the  two  letters  n  and  H;  all 
the  more,  since  the  explanation  given  here  for  the  Nequdoth, 
whatever  be  its  import,  is  found  in  many  of  the  other  writings 
which  point  the  He. 

97.  The  dotted  npH"!  is  found  in  the  Peshitto,  Targ.  Onkelos, 
and  in  the  Sam.  Pentateuch,  which  last  however  reads  it  jplene 
as  do  also  some  Hebrew  MSS.^  The  Ixx  translates  this  word  by 
the  adverb  ev  ohw  fxaKpav  instead  of  the  adjective  ev  ohw  fiafcpa. 
The  adverb  fia/cpav  (Yulg.  procul)  tends  to  show  that  the 
translators  did  not  take  npni  as  an  adjective  attributive  to  nil, 
but  as  a  part  of  the  predicate.     If  the  dotted  npfT)  had  been 

^  See  various  editions  Norzi,  Minchath  Shai ;  Michaelis ;  Ginsburg,  Kittel,  etc. 

^See  however  Norzi,  Minchath  Shai,  ad  locum. 

3  Ed.  Padua,  p.  194. 

*0n  M.  Pesachim,  ix,  2  (93b). 

^  In  Venice  Bible,  1617,  ad  locum. 

^Quoted  in  Minchath  Shai,  ad  locum,  and  in  Buxtorf's  Tiberias,  p.  180. 

"  See  Michaelis,  Biblia,  ad  locum. 

8  See  Schechter,  p.  100,  n.  26. 

^  On  the  Text.  Criticism  of  the  passage,  see  Strack,  Gen Num.  394 ; 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch.  86 

written  with  He,  no  such  confusion  could  have  taken  place. 
Besides,  ^T\,  though  epicene,  is  usually  masculine,  and  so  we 
would  expect  pn"n  rather  than  npn*1.  It  may  be  supposed  that 
the  one  who  wrote  npni  ^*n  had  vaguely  in  mind  the  expression 
npnn  pX  (Deut.  xxix,  21  ;  Jos.  ix,  6,  9,  etc.).  The  He  was 
therefore  absent  in  some  recensions,  and  this  is  further  borne  out 
by  the  Targ.  of  Ps.-Jon.,  "  X»^V  nni^D  pniDT  ^^ID  1t<," 
in  which  case  they  must  have  read  pn^  ^"12  *1N .  .  •  1I;'•^<  con- 
strued as  "|mn  pni  ^^' . .  w^^. 

98.  In  order  to  understand  the  explanations  which  are  given 
of  the  point  on  this  passage,^  we  must  remember  that,  whatever 
may  have  been  the  reasons  for  the  extension,  all  the  Rabbis  were 
agreed,  that  apart  from  the  two  classes  of  men  expressUy  men- 
tioned who  had  to  postpone  the  celebration  of  the  Passover,  there 
were  others  hinted  at  in  this  verse,  v.  g.,  those  who  were  physi- 
cally prevented  or  were  morally  defiled.^  With  regard  to  the 
distance  that  was  to  be  considered  as  npHI,  some  took  the  distance 
to  Modaim — 15  miles — as  a  norm,^  while  others,  among  whom 
are  R.  Eliezer,  and  R.  Juda,  limited  it  to  the  threshold  of  the 
sanctuary."^  These  two  Rabbis  based  their  view  on  the  prescrip- 
tion for  the  eating  of  tithes  (Deut.  xiv,  23-25).  In  this  latter 
case  it  is  said  that  the  Israelites  should  eat  the  tithes  only  in  the 
place  chosen  by  God,  i.  e.  Jerusalem  and  any  one  who  was  too 
far  away  (kept  away)  from  Jerusalem,  had  to  fulfil  the  prescription 
given  in  Deut.  xiv,  25.  In  like  manner  (Deut.  xvi,  6),  for 
celebrating  the  Passover  the  sanctuary  was  the  proper  place,  and 
hence  any  place  outside  of  it,  if  the  man  was  kept  away,  was 
considered  sufficient  distance.  Apparently  the  idea  of  remoteness 
does  not  refer  to  the  distance,  which  may  not  be  npni,  but  to  the 

1  On  the  Jewish  explanations  of  the  Points,  see  Buxtorf,  Tiberias,  177  ;  Geiger, 
Urschrift,  185  ;  Lesestucke,  86  ff.  ;  Miiller,  Soferim,  88  ;  Blau,  3fU,  25  f.  ;  Konigs- 
berger,  MuTK,  20  ;  Ginsburg,  Introd.,  322  ;  Weir,  Heb.  Text,  60. 

^M.  Pesachim,  ix,  1;  Jer.  Pesachira,  ix,  1;  Pesachim,  93a;  Tosefta  Pes., 
VIII,  1.     Note  besides  the  Paseq  line  in  the  Massoretic  Text,  between  N?2t0  and 

3  M.  Pesachim,  ix,  2  ;  Pesachim,  93b  ;  Neubauer,  Geographic  du  Talmvd,  p.  99. 
*M.  Pes.,  IX,  2;  Sifre,  "^nbrnD,  §  69,  p.  18a  (cp.  Leqach  Tob,  ed.  Padua, 
p.  194)  ;  Jer.  Pesachim,  ix,  2  ;  Pesachim,  94b  (end). 


86  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

man,  who,  for  some  reason,  such  as  defilement,  is  prevented  from 
entering  the  sanctuary  ;  however,  it  was  said  by  R.  Abai  ^  that  the 
law  of  the  llpm  ^11  did  not  apply  to  the  unclean  but  to  the 
clean.  In  fact  R.  Eliezer  seems  to  have  read  his  text  just  like 
the  Ixx  and  Targ.  Jonathan ;  besides,  he  seems  to  have  given  as 
translation  '  distant  on  a  journey '  and  not  '  on  a  distant  journey.' 
According  to  R.  Jose  the  Nequdah  on  the  He  has  precisely  for 
effect  to  bring  about  the  possibility  of  such  an  interpretation ; 
this  is  equivalent  to  the  condemnation  of  the  He  in  npH*!.^ 
Consequently,  the  Gemarah  explains  the  point  by  saying  that 
He  is  pointed  because  it  is  the  man,  not  the  journey,  that  is  afar 
off*:  "npinn  "]m  ]^K1  pinn  W^,^^  l  e.,  although  he  be  near,  still 
he  is  kept  away,  *  pIDI,'  by  his  state  of  defilement.^  This  is  the 
view  of  Rashi  also.*  Sifre  has  no  other  meaning  than  the  above  : 
it  tells  us  that  He  is  pointed,  because,  although  the  distance  be 
short,  if  the  man  is  defiled  he  should  not  offer  the  Passover  with 
the  others ;  i.  e.,  if  he  is  defiled  the  distance  matters  little,  for 
he  himself  is  morally  remote,  and  cannot  celebrate  the  Passover, 
pni  ^"lID  =  "jl^lD  pm  ^^^ ',  thus  according  to  Sifre  the  He  has 
to  be  condemned. 

99.  The  catchword  of  Sifre  has  been  preserved  in  Leqach 
Tob  (list)  and  Bemidbar  Rabba.  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (1)  and 
Midr.  Mishle  reproduce  the  explanations  of  R.  Jose,  but  with  the 
variations,  "...  K^X  Hpim  ^XVn  ^h^ "  instead  of  ^:D»  N^ 
"1)1  ^h^  ^^1\  npinntl^.  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (2),  as  said  above, 
points  the  entire  n'p'l'n'*!  and  departs  still  more  from  the 
explanations  of  Sifre  on  which  it  apparently  depends.  Its  testi- 
mony, though  explainable  by  the  cancelling  of  the  He,  would 
rather  perhaps  suggest  the  removal  of  the  entire  word  np*in"1 ; 

"nnnp  ^W  r\y^^^  vhv  n^^n  ""x-n  rvTr\  rvrw  npinn  ^mn  ik" 

This  method  of  placing  the  points  may  have  arisen  from  the  false 

^Pesachim,  94b. 

2  M.  Pesachim  ix,  2 ;  Jer.  Pesachim  ix,  2 ;  Tosef ta  Pesachim  viii,  3.     See 
Moses  b.  Nachman  in  Norzi,  Minchath  Shai,  od  locum. 

*  Jer.  Pesachim  ix,  2  (end). 

*  Rashi,  Comm.  on  Num.  ix,  10  ;  Ba'al  ha-Turim  simply  says  that  the  He  is 
annulled  by  the  Point. 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch.  87 

reconstruction  of  some  such  rubric  as  llpj  'n  *five  points/ 
instead  of  '  He  is  pointed ' ;  this  is  all  the  more  probable  since 
it  reads  nplPlI  plene,  i.  e.,  with  five  letters.  It  may  also  have 
been  based  on  some  mss.  in  which,  in  conformity  with  v.  13  of 
the  same  chapter,  npiri"!  was  not  to  be  found;  probably,  however, 
this  pointing  of  every  letter  is  purely  a  mistake,  and  in  any  case, 
neither  the  place  of  the  Nequdoth  nor  their  explanations  correspond 
accurately  to  the  original  tradition. 

100.  This,  we  think,  after  Geiger^  and  Friedmann,^  is  the 
correct  understanding  of  Sifre ;  Blau,^  however,  takes  a  different 
view.  He  supposes  a  reading  npn^  ^"^"i^*l>  instead  of  the  present 
npm  ^112  )^j  and  argues  as  follows  :  if  we  accept  the  reading 
n^"I3%  it  is  evident  that  there  is  a  danger  of  making  the  waw 
conjunctive,  instead  of  disjunctive,*  in  which  case  the  text  would 
read :  "  he  who  is  defiled  and  at  the  same  time  is  on  a  long 
journey,"  etc.  Now  Sifre  says  that  even  he  who  is  on  a  short 
journey  but  is  defiled  should  not  offer  the  Passover ;  this  accord- 
ing to  Blau  is  to  remind  the  reader  that  instead  of  the  1  '  and ' 
we  should  read  "IN  ^  or.' 

101.  Against  this  view,  there  is  the  explicit  mention  by  Sifre 
itself  of  the  He  as  the  pointed  letter.^  Besides,  if  Sifre  had 
intended  to  insist  on  the  two  classes  of  men  who  should  postpone 
the  Passover,  viz.,  mB:h  i<OZ0  and  npH^I  "]T\2f  we  should  natur- 
ally expect  Sifre  to  tell  us  ^B:h  XDtO  i<im  HDnp  ^1"1D  )b^B^  and 
not  simply  NDtD  NIH,^  unless — as  Blau  actually  does — we  throw 
suspicion  on  the  IVB^b  of  the  Biblical  verse ;  but  this  would  be 
of  little  service,  for  Sifre  certainly  read  it  in  its  recension. 
Finally,  the  reference  to  the  words  of  Kabbi,^  "  yi<'W  '•£)  bv  H^ 


^  Urschrift,  etc. ,  185  f . 
^  Sifre,  p.  18a,  n.  8. 


^MU,  26.     See  also  Ginsburg,  Introd.,  322. 

*  That  the  waw  is  sometimes  equivalent  to  IX,  is  seen  from  other  passages,  such 
as  Exod.  xxi,  15,  17  ;  IK.  xviii,  27,  etc. 

^  See  however  the  repetition  of  this  seman  at  the  end  of  the  list,  where  we  read 
simply  rbr  ^Ipl 

^Compare  Sifre,  §  69  (beginning). 

'  Blau,  MU,  27.     See  above,  §  59. 


88  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

l^yo^O  nnx  n-npj  ^W  UW''  does  not  warrant  the  infer- 
ence that  on  this  passage  the  point  was  placed  on  the  first  letter 
of  some  word,  viz.,  ^"i"Qi.  Blau  is  right  in  understanding  ]^j;D^a 
in  the  sense  of  ^in  the  beginning/  instead  of  ^  above/  but  the 
saying  of  Kabbi,  being  opposed  to  a  general  statement,  has  itself 
all  the  characteristics  of  a  universal  rule.  Moreover,  the  rule  of 
Rabbi,  if  applied  to  the  supposed  irr\y\  in  this  passage,  would 
entail  the  condemnation  of  the  entire  word,  since — at  least  for 
real  exegesis — it  is  pronounced  non-existent,  but  this  position, 
we  think,  could  not  be  maintained. 

Let  us  then  conclude  that  originally  only  the  He  of  HprTI  was 
pointed,  and  that  the  point  is  devised  to  cancel  it,  thus  making  it 
agree  with  recensions  in  which  this  letter  was  not  to  be  found.^ 


Num.  XXI,  30. 

102.  Soferim,  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (1),  Bemidbar  Rabba, 
Baer's  Diqduqe  ha-Te'amim,  correspond  to  the  Massoretic  tra- 
dition with  regard  to  the  place  of  the  points.  The  Oxford  ms. 
of  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (1)^  points  the  Daleth  of  ND'T'O  "iy; 
and  Yalqut  —  although  reproducing  Sifre — probably  dots  the 
Daleth  of  HDJ  "ly ;  *  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (2)  places  the  dots  over 
q'v^' j'*l^  but  its  explanations  probably  refer  to  ND"T'D  "IV  ;  Leqach 
Tob  (list)  reads  n'U^X;  Sifre  and  Midr.  Mishle  leave  the  place 
undetermined.  Midr.  Mishle  in  quoting  the  Biblical  passage  has 
only  riDIJ  "ly  D^'tl'^l,  thereby  implying  that  the  points  fall  some- 
where  on    one    of  these  words.     Some    apparently  pointed    the 

^  The  testimony  of  Zohar,  which  probably  attributes  to  the  Points  the  value  of 
our  Italics,  is  therefore  opposed  to  the  older  Jewish  sources. 

2  Thus  the  various  editions  ;  cp.  Norzi,  Michaelis,  Ginsburg,  Kittel,  etc. 

"Schechter,  p.  101,  n.  27. 

*  §  722  ;  thus  in  some  editions  as  v.  g.,  that  of  Frankf.  a.  M.  (1687)  and  that  of 
Zolkiew  (1858) .  It  is  to  be  remarked  that  in  quoting  the  Biblical  passage,  Yalqut 
has  only  '  nD^  Hi?  D*''£?in.'  In  other  editions,  the  place  of  the  Points  is  left  unde- 
termined, and  the  reference  is  '  I^N  HD:  "i:?  D^^^V 


JExtraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  89 

entire  ^tr^N,  for  Norzi   insists   that   only  the  Resh  should  have 
the  NequdaJi} 

103.  The  passage  has  greatly  suffered  and  there  are  no  two 
versions  that  agree  on  it.^  However,  it  would  be  beyond  our 
purpose  to  enter  into  a  full  discussion  of  this  verse ;  almost  every 
word  offers  a  new  difficulty,  from  a  critical  as  well  as  from  an 
exegetical  point  of  view.  Let  it  be  noted  simply  that  the  Sam. 
Pent,  and  Lxx  read  11)^  instead  of  the  dotted  Ili'X,  and  this  is 
also  the  reading  of  Baba  Bathra  78b-79a.^  There  were  besides, 
several  recensions  with  regard  to  X2"l''ia  "ly,  which  is  read  'o  ^y, 
by  Sam.  Pent.,  lxx,  Targ.  Onkelos,  as  well  as  by  Kennic.  193 
(first  hand),  345.  The  word  WiTTi,  pointed  by  Aboth  de  R. 
Nathan  (2),  seems  to  be  critically  correct,  though  its  translation 
has  occasioned  a  different  rendering  in  lxx,  viz.  ai  yvvaiK€<;, 
Kennicott  4  omits  ly  before  nSDJ. 

104.  In  the  Jewish  testimonies  on  this  passage,  we  have 
several  divergent  accounts  of  the  Nequdoth}  Sifre  informs  us 
that  there  are  points  because  ^  further  it  was  also  thus.'  It  is 
clear,  therefore,  that  the  limit  set  to  the  ravages  of  the  victorious 
Amorites  should  be  either  extended  or  entirely  left  aside.  To  this 
effect,  we  might  suppress  ny  before  HDJ  and  read  n^X  nD:3  U^wy^y 
^  we  have  laid  waste  Nophach  which,'  etc.  As  the  Biblical  verse 
would  not  say  any  longer  that  the  devastation  stopped  at  Nophach, 
we  would  be  at  liberty  to  assert  with  Sifre  that  '  further,  it  was 
also  thus.'  ^  This  would  correspond  accurately  enough  to  the 
words  of  Sifre,  but  HDJ  iy  is  found  in  almost  all  MSS.,  in 
the  Sam.  Pent.,  and  is  supposed  by  LXX  "  eVt "  as  well  as  by  the 
Peshitto  "  ps>  r^ ; "  it  is  besides  very  doubtful  whether  any 
of  the  ancient   Jewish   writings  would  support   the  supposedly 

1  Minchath  Shai,  ad  locum  ;  thus  also  Meiri,  in  Blau,  MU,  28,  and  Lonzano,  Or 
Torah,  19  b. 

'On  the  Text.  Criticism  of  the  verse,  see  Strack,  Oen iVwm.,  p.  429; 

Baentsch,  Num.,  587  ;  Paterson,  Num.,  ad  locum. 

'  Cp.  Yalqut,  §  765,  and  also  Num.  xxi,  28. 

*0n  these  explanations,  see  Buxtorf,  Tiberias,  178;  Geiger,  Urschnfl,  257; 
Miiller,  Sofenm,  89;  Blau,  MU,  28  ff.;  Konigsberger,  MuTK,  21  f.;  Ginsburg, 
Introd.,  326  ;  V^eir,  Hebr.  Text,  61. 

°See  Blau,  MU,  29  ;  however,  see  also  p.  34. 


90  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

original  place  of  the  dots   over  riDJ   "ij.     See,  however,  Midr. 
Mishle,  and  Yalqut  in  some  editions. 

105.  On  account  of  the  prevalent  tradition  that  the  Resh 
of  '^iVi^  is  the  letter  pointed,  we  must  investigate  whether  the 
catchword  of  Sifre  can  be  accounted  for  in  that  hypothesis.  By- 
cancelling  the  Resh  of  ^.IVi^,  we  may  translate  the  verse,  ^  we  laid 
waste  as  far  as  Noj)hach,  fire  has  been  as  far  as  Medeba.' 
According  to  our  present  Massoretic  text,  the  ravage  was  carried 
on  only  as  far  as  Nophach,  but  did  not  reach  Medeba,  since 
Medeba  is  given  simply  to  determine  the  limits  of  the  territory 
of  Nophach ;  it  is  therefore  evident  that  we  extend  the  sphere  of 
the  Amorite  conquest  by  reading  XDI^iD  IV  '^^  >  consequently, 
we  can  also  say  with  Sifre  '  that  further  it  was  also  thus.'  As  the 
suppression  of  Resh  in  ^Wi^  has  good  support  in  Textual  Criti- 
cism, and  accounts  as  well  as  the  first  view  for  the  catchword  of 
Sifre,  it  seems  to  us  useless  to  make  any  other  supposition.  How 
the  place  of  the  Nequdah  was  occasionally  changed,  and  the 
Daleth  of  "liD  "IJ^  pointed,  is  easily  understood  if  we  pay  atten- 
tion to  the  similarity  between  the  two  letters  Resh  and  Daleth; 
the  substitution  was  made  easier  from  the  fact  that  some  recen- 
sions read  XliT'lO  bv  instead  of  i<:D"T'D  ^V  ',  and  further,  some 
transferred  the  points  from  "TiD  "IV  to  HDJ  "ly  (?)•  Whatever 
may  be  said  of  the  supposed  reading  X3"I^0  hv,  it  is  beyond 
doubt  that  the  catchword  of  Sifre  cannot  be  justified  if  we 
point  '"I'lD  "iy ;  as  long  as  we  accept  ^XD^,  whether  we  read 
7^  or  'T»1D  Ij;,  it  could  not  be  said  that  the  destruction  was 
carried  further  than  is  indicated  in  the  present  Massoretic  text. 
The  pointing  of  "Ij;,  although  not  primitive,  may  have  given  rise 
to  other  explanations,  as  is  apparently  the  case  in  Aboth  de  R. 
Nathan  (2) ;  this  document  tells  us  that  U^WT[  is  pointed  because 
they  did  not  carry  on  this  destruction  as  far  as  Medeba.  In  view 
of  the  fact  that  it  reads  the  Biblical  verse  N3"T')0  hVi  and  says  that 
without  the  Nequdoth  we  should  infer  that  they  had  smitten  as 
far  as  "  iy ''  Medeba,  it  is  very  likely  that  it  intends  to  call 
attention  to  the  difference  of  readings  between  '"Tio  "ly  and 
'"T'O  7^.  Possibly,  however,  this  explanation  is  purely  exegetical, 
laying  emphasis  on  the  translation  of  C^^l?  as  ^  and  the  women ' 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  91 

instead  of  '  we  laid  waste ; '  if  so,  the  place  assigned  to  the  points 
would  not  have  been  the  result  of  a  mistake,  but  the  effect  of  a 
deliberate  judgment.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  this  explanation 
is  a  deviation,  and  in  no  way  represents  the  original  tradition 
preserved  in  Sifre. 

106.  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (1)  has  an  account  of  the 
Nequdoth    different    from    that    of    Sifre.     It    says    "^y    Tip^ 

This,  if  not  directly  suggestive  of  the  function  of  the  Nequdoth 
in  cancelling  the  Resh  of  1IL'^?,  is  at  least  the  Haggadic  explana- 
tion of  a  text  in  which  the  Resh  was  not  to  be  found.  Apparently 
it  translates  W^WTl  by  ^and  the  women,'  and  as  a  corresponding 
term  ^X  by  ^  men  ; '  ^  thus  we  may  read  :  ^  Heshbon  has  perished 
unto  Dibon,  women  as  far  as  Nophach,  men  as  far  as  Medeba ; ' 
hence  the  further  explanation  that  they  destroyed  the  popula- 
tions— i.  e.y  U^W^']  and  IV^^i^ — but  not  the  provinces.^  Bemidbar 
Rabba,  in  an  alternative  catchword,  probably  intended  to  repro- 
duce this  passage  of  Aboth  de  E,.  Nathan ;  but  it  displaced  the 
negative  particles,  making  the  explanation  just  the  reverse  of 
that  of  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan,  niOlKH  ID^nn  t<blV  10^0  i^'^) 
nino  ^b^.  Still,  it  is  not  impossible  that  some  Rabbi,  while 
preserving  the  terms  of  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan,  wished  to  give 
an  explanation  more  in  conformity  with  the  traditional  one. 
Apparently  he  translates  ^N  by  ^  fire '  "  tr^K "  (cp.  Baba  Bathra 
78b,  79a);  then  by  further  translating  nWTi  as  ^we  laid  waste,' 
it  could  be  said  that  they  did  not  destroy  the  populations — as 
there  is  no  question  of  women  and  men — but  that  the  provinces 
had  undergone  devastation.  It  is  clear  therefore  that  both  in  the 
seman  of  Sifre,  as  well  as  in  the  explanations  of  Aboth  de  R. 

iQn  the  ^X  =  *27^X,  see  Blau,  MU,  29  ;  Ginsburg,  Introd.,  I.  c.  It  is  found  on 
the  Mesa  stone,  11.  13,  20,  25,  and  in  the  Siloam  Inscr,,  11.  2,  4. 

2  Blau,  MU,  29.  Whether  or  not  UN  should  still  be  construed  as  a  relative,  is 
of  secondary  importance  for  us  ;  Sifre  did  not  understand  it  as  such.  Cp.  Diestel, 
Die  Nota  relationis  in  Hebr.,  quoted  by  Konigsberger,  MuTK,  21,  n.  2  ;  Hommel, 
in  ZBMG,  xxxii,  708  flf.  See,  besides,  the  reconstruction  of  Hiller  after  the 
suppression  of  the  Besh  of  lUN,  ''"ir^U  NHCiJ  -Jl?",  quoted  in  Kosenmuller, 
Scholia,  ad  locum,  and  Konigsberger,  MuTK,  21,  n.  2.  This,  however,  would 
not  justify  the  seman  of  Sifre,  as  the  sense  would  remain  the  same. 


92  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

Nathan  and  Bemidbar  Rabba,  we  have  a  clear  indication  or 
supposition  that  the  Resh  of  *1U^N  is  spurious  and  should  be 
cancelled. 

107.  When  we  examine  the  explanation  of  Midr.  Mishle,  the 
idea  of  which  is  preserved  in  Midr.  ha-Gadol/  viz.,  that  the 
Amorites  allowed  a  portion  to  escape,  we  cannot  help  seeing  in  it 
a  special  interpretation  of,  or  an  equivalent  to,  the  words  of  Aboth 
de  E.  Nathan  (1),  ^  that  they  destroyed  the  populations  but  not 
the  provinces.'  Perhaps,  however,  it  has  in  view  the  translation 
of  □'•It'JI  by  ^ women'  and  ^X  by  ^men.'  Then,  it  could  be  said 
that  women  perished  as  far  as  Nophach  and  men  as  far  as  Medeba  ; 
hence,  we  could  conclude  that  the  Amorites  spared  men,  as  far  as 
Nophach,  and  women,  as  far  as  Medeba,  i.  e.,  that  they  allowed  a 
portion  to  escape. 

Num.  XXIX,  15. 

108.  The  Massoretic  text  enumerates  the  several  victims  to 
be  offered  during  the  solemnities  of  the  feast  of  Tabernacles,  and 
mentions  the  quantity  of  flour  to  be  used  for  each  :  ]Tllt^j;  ]^^U^j;i 
□'•II^^D  nw  nynnh?^  ^n'i^r\  tl^DD^.^  Thus  also,  Sam.  Pent.,  Ixx, 
Yulg.,  Targ.  Onkelos ;  but  Peshitto  has  r^  p  o  r^Sii.0  =  nnx  ]TWV^ ; 
one  ])^'WV  is  omitted  in  Kenn.  193,  199.  In  the  context,  this 
same  expression  occurs  in  xxviii,  13;  in  xxviii,  21  (the  first  yi^WV 
is  omitted  in  Kenn.  140,  and  Peshitto  reads  r^  }jo;xc^o  ); 
in  xxviii,  29  (one  ])^WV  is  omitted  in  Kenn.  184,  and  Peshitto 
reads  as  in  v.  21) ;  in  xxix,  10  (but  Kenn.  9,  109,  to  which 
Peshitto  corresponds,  read  nnx  ]*1^V1)'  Hence,  there  existed  some 
uncertainty  in  the  use  of  these  ]1*l\I^y.  In  any  case,  there  can  be 
but  little  doubt  that  on  this  passage  there  were  recensions  in  which 
one  of  them  was  dropped.  As  ]nw  is  not  reduplicated  in  xxix, 
4,  though  Sam.  Pent.,  Ixx,  Kenn.  177  have  two,  it  is  very  likely 
that  some  scribe  followed  the  analogy  of  that  verse,  and  put  only 
one  yi^lVV  ill  xxix,  15,  while  others  followed  the  analogy  of  the 
passages    mentioned   above.^     In  the  context,  there  is  but  one 

^See  Schechter,  Ab.  de  B.  Nathan  {1),  p.  101,  n.  27. 

'See  Strack,  o.  c,  455  ;  Baentsch,  o.  c,  ad  Ioqukyi  ;  Paterson,  o.  c.^  ad  locum. 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch  dft 

passage  in  which  jn^y  is  not  reduplicated ;  it  is  probable  that 
owing  to  the  process  of  harmonization  another  yrw^  has  been  intro- 
duced into  verse  15,  while,  as  shown  by  Peshitto,  there  should 
have  been  only  one. 

109.  Even  in  the  recensions  that  had  the  two  VTW"^  in  verse 
15,  there  were  several  traditions  with  regard  to  the  conjunctive 
waw.  In  the  parallel  passages  mentioned  above,  there  is  doubt 
on  that  point.  On  Num.  xxviii,  21,  the  waw  is  omitted  by 
Hebrew,  Targ.  Onkelos,  and  Ixx ;  but  it  is  given  by  Sam.  Pent., 
Peshitto,  Yulg.,  and  some  Hebr.  Mss.^  The  conjunctive  waw  is 
also  omitted  in  xxviii,  29,  by  Hebr.,  Ixx,  Vulg.  ;  but  it  is  found 
in  Sam.  Pent.,  Peshitto,  Kenn.  17,  de  Rossi,  1,  549.  Hebr.,  Ixx, 
and  Vulg.,  leave  out  the  waw  in  xxix,  10;  but  it  is  retained  by 
Sam.  Pent.,  Peshitto.  In  xxix,  4,  on  the  contrary,  the  conjunc- 
tion is  given  by  Hebr.,  Sam.  Pent.,  Peshitto,  but  is  omitted  by 
Ixx,  and  Vulg.  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  to  find  dis- 
crepancies with  regard  to  xxix,  15  ;  though  found  in  Hebr.,  Sam. 
Pent.,  Peshitto,  and  Vulg.,  the  waw  is  omitted  by  Ixx, — except 
AF,2_as  well  as  by  Kenn.  181,  674. 

110.  A  third  class  of  variants  with  regard  to  ]1"lir^y  in  its 
various  grammatical  forms  bears  on  the  orthography  of  this 
word.  In  the  plural  it  generally  occurs,  at  least  in  the  context, 
defectively  written;  e.  g.,  xxviii,  12,  20,  28;  xxix,  3,  9,  14; 
however,  in  some  mss.  of  Kenn.,  especially  9,  84,  132,  193,  and 
in  some  Sam.  MSS.,  such  as  Kenn.  64,  QQ^  it  is  ^\Y\iiQ\i  ^lene.  In 
the  singular,  it  occurs  once  written  defective,  viz.  xxviii,  13  (first), 
although  some  thirty  MSS.  of  Kenn.  read  it  plene.  In  the  other 
passages,  it  is  generally  fully  written;  thus  xxviii,  13  (2d),  xx\aii, 
21  (twice);  xxviii,  29  (twice);  xxix,  4;  xxix,  10  (twice).  These 
various  ]n\I^V  occur  also  defectively  written  in  some  mss.,  for 
which  we  refer  the  reader  to  Kennicott,  de  Rossi,  etc.  The  same 
uncertainty  prevails  regarding  verse  15  ;  though  these  two  ]YWVf 
are  read  jplene  in  Sam.  Pent.,  and  in  almost  all  MSS.,  still,  the  first 
is  read  defective,  in  Kenn.  89,  109,  232,  253,  260,  600  marg.,  and 
the  second,  in  Kenn.  5,  15,  69,  109,  158,  232,  253,  260.     If  we 

^Kenn.  1  and  de  Kossi  1. 

=*Swete,  0.  T.  in  Greek,  ad  locum;  cp.  Holmes,  Vet.  Test.  Graec.,  ad  locum. 


94  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

bear  in  mind  the  principle  referred  to  above,  viz.  that  the  dejective 
spelling  should  generally  be  given  preference  over  the  plene  forms, 
it  is  very  probable  that  ]1"112;y  should  be  written  defective.  Besides, 
it  is  also  certain  that  jntTj;  was  not  repeated  in  some  Mss.,  and  in 
others,  was  written  without  the  conjunctive  waiv. 

111.  As  mi^ht  be  expected  from  what  precedes,  the  greatest 
confusion  prevails  among  the  various  Jewish  sources  with  regard 
to  the  place  of  the  Nequdoth.  According  to  some,  ]nu^V  is 
entirely  pointed ;  thus  Sifre,  "  ])'^]VV  bv  "l^p^/^  Meiri  and  a  few 
MSS.^  Aboth  de  K.  Nathan  (2)  and  Midr.  Mishle^  place  the 
points  over  the  second  yi'l'WV'  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (1), 
"T^n  ])^mv  "lip:)  ....  I'nw  inW^''?  and  Soferim,  point  only 
the  waw  of  the  second  ])^WV'  Bemidbar  Rabba  and  a  MS.  of  Aboth 
de  R.  Nathan  (1),^  although  pointing  the  entire  ]1"ltl^y,  refer  to 
Num.  xxviii,  21,  "HDD  b^  *  -  .  -  jnw  bv  "l^pl"  Yalqut — 
though  it  reproduces  Sifre — leaves  the  place  undetermined ;  this 
is  also  the  case,  at  least  with  respect  to  the  exact  letters,  in 
Leqach  Tob  (list),  Diqduqe  ha-Te'amim,  and  the  Massoretic  list. 
Finally,  Menachoth,  87b,^  says  that  the  waw  in  the  middle  of  the 
first  ])^'WV  is  the  letter  pointed.  As  is  evident  from  the  Hebrew 
MSS.  and  editions,  this  latter  tradition  has  prevailed  in  most 
Massoretic  schools.^ 

112.  In  the  midst  of  such  confusion,  we  must  turn  to  the 
various  explanations  of  the  points,  in  order  to  find  out  both 
their  place  and  purpose.  Sifre  tells  us  that  one  of  the 
two  Issarons  is  pointed  because  there  was  but  one  Issaron, 
"in^D  "iHK  inw  ^b^  ^^■^  b6lV  bv-'^  In  order  to  understand 
this  testimony,  we  must  bear  in  mind  the  scholastic  discussion 
preserved  in  Menacboth  87a  (end)  and  87b  (top).  The  Rabbis 
were  all  agreed  that  there  was  in  the  temple  no  dry-measure 

^See  Michaelis,  BibL,  ad  locum. 

2  **y^'n  has  been  corriected  by  the  editor  into  II^^XIH. 

3  Schechter,  p.  101,  n.  28. 

^  See  Arukh,  s.  v.  ^p^  ;  Yalqut,  §  782 ;  Eabbinowicz,  Diqduqe  Soferim,  P.  xv, 
p.  216. 

^  Thus  various  editions ;  cp.  Norzi,  Ginsburg,  Kittel,  etc.  It  would  seem  that 
some  pointed  the  conjunctive  waw;  see  Strack,  o.  c,  p.  455;  cp.  Konigsberger, 
MuTK,  23-25. 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  96 

larger  than  a  single  Issaron,  and  that,  consequently,  the  three  and 
the  two  Issaro7is  required  respectively  for  a  bullock  and  a  ram, 
were  not  measured  in  measures  containing  three  and  two  Issarons 
respectively,  but  that  a  one-Issaron  measure  was  used  for  the 
purpose.^  They  were  all  agreed  besides,  on  the  presence  in 
the  temple  of  a  half-Issaron  measure.  However,  they  differed 
regarding  the  Biblical  passages  which  should  be  appealed  to  as 
support  for  these  traditions  and  regarding  the  number  of  one- 
Issaron  measures  in  the  temple. 

The  minority,  represented  by  R.  Meir,  stated  that  there  were 
two  kinds  of  one-Issaron  measures,  the  one  heaped  and  the  other 
struck,  because  it  is  said,  "  ])^'WV  ])^'\VV  '^ — an  application  of  the 
rule  of  extension  on  account  of  repetition ;  on  the  other  hand,  as 
we  read  ""^^^?  llltl^j;!/^  ^  it  is  a  sign  that  the  two  or  three 
Issarons  were  measured  in  a  single  Issaron  measure;  further, 
the  presence  of  "nnt<  jI'ltL^yi,^'  ^  and  one  Issaron^  justifies  the 
tradition  that  there  was  also  a  half- Jssaron  measure. 

The  majority  said  that  there  was  but  one  kind  of  Issarons, 
because  it  is  said,  "  "tHK  ]niL^j;i."  The  presence  of  ]nw  ]nw 
does  not  justify  the  view  of  E..  Meir  that  there  were  two  kinds 
of  Issarons,  but  implies  only  the  existence  of  a  half-Issaron.^ 
The  repetition  of  ])^W)J  ])1WV  in  xxix,  15,  should  not  be  under- 
stood as  indicative  of  a  measure  larger  than  a  single  Issaron, 
because  one  of  them  is  pointed,  i.  e.,  the  rule  of  extension  does 
not  apply  to  this  passage  on  account  of  the  point,  but  makes 
\rwv  in^y  equivalent  to  R.  Meir's  inx  ]P,OT.*  They  all  seem 
to  have  taken  it  for  granted  that  the  presence  of  two  ]^'^'WV  should 
be  made  the  basis  of  an  extension,  either  with  regard  to  the  num- 
ber of  the  one-Issaron  measures, — as  R,.  Meir,  not  taking  the 
Point  into  account,  actually  does, — or  with  reference  to  the  capa- 
city of  the  Issarons ;  this  extension  however  was  set  aside  on 
account  of  the  Nequdah, 

^  See  Kashi  on  this  passage  87a  (end). 
^  Num.  xxix,  4. 

3  They  had  probably  in  view  xxix,  10  and  not  xxix,  15  as  the  rule  of  extension 
was  not  applied  to  that  last  verse  on  account  of  the  Point. 
*  See  the  explicit  statement,  ibid.  87b  (top). 


96  Meaning  and  Purjpose  of  the 

Consequently,  when  Sifre  tells  us  that  '\T\'WV  is  pointed, '  because 
there  was  but  one  Issaron/  it  evidently  takes  the  same  view 
as  the  Rabbis,  in  considering  the  point  as  annulling  one  of  the 
Issarons,  and  it  excludes  the  opinion  of  R.  Meir  concerning  the 
existence  of  the  two  one-Issaron  measures.  (See  this  idea  in 
Leqach  Tob,  (list)).  The  immediate  inference  is  that  one  of  the 
]11W  should  be  left  out,  as  its  presence  would  give  rise  to  the 
law  of  extension.  As  Sifre  reads  the  Biblical  verse  jl'lll^y  I'l'IW? 
it  is  impossible  to  know  whether  it  is  the  first  or  the  second  ])^]VV 
which  is  pointed. 

113.  From  the  fact  that  Sifre  points  the  entire  ]1*1tt^V^  ^^^ 
since  the  explanation  of  the  point  by  R.  Jose,  viz.,  ^1)^12^  K^ti; 
b^inh  U'W  bw2  i6)  id'?  ':  bu;^  X^  also  supposes  that  ]nw 
should  be  entirely  pointed,  we  are  led  to  the  conclusion  that,  in 
the  Gemarah,  there  has  been  a  deviation  from  the  primitive  place 
assigned  to  the  Nequdoth  on  this  passage.  In  what  follows  we  try 
to  give  what  we  consider  a  probable  account  of  this  deviation. 
In  Menachoth,  the  Biblical  verse  is  read  as  in  Sifre,  '  yi'^WV  ]1^^V>' 
and  not  ^  yi^WV  ])1)2^V^ '  >  but  the  wording  of  the  explanation  of 
the  point  by  R.  Jose  supposes  a  text,  ^  y\^lV)J  ])1]VV\^  for,  emphasis 
is  laid  on  the  pointing  of  the  waw  in  the  middle  of  jl'^II^J^,  as  if  to 
prevent  a  possible  confusion  with  another  waio ;  this  latter  can 
only  be  the  conjunctive  waiv  in  ]1'n^5?1.  This  leads  us  further  to 
assume,  that  the  rubric  from  which  Menachoth  borrows  read, 
']nw  "1  bv  "Ilp^/  construed  as  ]nTO  iblV]  ')  bv  "11p:i^;  or  per- 
haps, according  to  a  possible  method,  mentioned  above,  of  pointing 
the  first  letter  as  representative  of  the  whole  word,  it  read : 
'  '  1  bv  '  p^  ]1^tl^yi '  with  the  subsequent  confusion  of  the  two  waws. 
This  would  be  a  perfect  parallel  to  HiS^lpDI  of  Gen.  xix,  33,  to 
which  we  refer  the  reader.^ 

114.  According  to  the  current  text  of  the  Talmud,  in  which 
we  read,  ^  mpJD,'  it  would  seem  that  the  Rabbis  intended  to  draw 
their  inference  from  a  single  dotted  letter;  but,  as  Rabbinowicz 
remarks,   up    to    the    edition    of   Frankfurt   a.   M.,    1690,    the 

1  See  above,  §§59,  80,  93. 

^IHqduqe  Soferim,  P.  XV,  p.  216,  n.  6. 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  97 

previous  editions  read  the  plural  *  '•"Ilpio/  which  is  also  the  case 
in  the  MS.  of  Cairo.^  It  is  also  very  significant  that  the  plural 
has  been  preserved  at  the  end  of  the  explanation  of  K.  Jose, 
"li;m  t6  mp:  "O  "1."  It  seems,  therefore,  well  nigh  certain 
that  the  primitive  tradition  knew  of  more  than  one  point  on  this 
passage.  We  think  ourselves  justified  consequently,  in  maintain- 
ing that  originally  the  explanation  of  K.  Jose  simply  read, 
" .  .  .  .  "ino''  N^tl^  intl^yi  [^y]  -npj  nn^.''  When  the  confusion 
spoken  of  above  had  taken  place,  either  at  the  time  of  the  Gema- 
rah  or  later  on,  the  need  was  felt  of  specifying  more  accurately 
what  they  considered  to  be  the  real  place  of  the  points,  and  of 
further  guarding  against  a  possible  confusion  either  with  another 
waw  or  with  other  parallel  passages,  such  as  xxviii,  21,  xxviii,  29, 
xxix,  10;  to  this  effect  they  made  the  following  additions  and 
corrections:    b^  ]Wifl^  jn^I^j;  b^  ])^WV  V^t^^^^  V^ll  mpj  n»^ 

/):)  nnQi  ^bw  Lin  b^  ii^xnn  diio  nv 

The  explanations  of  Menachoth  just  given,  will  sufficiently 
account  for  the  pointing  of  the  second  waw  of  ]1^Ii;j;i  by  the 
Massorah.  We  wish  simply  to  note  that  the  Massoretic  ]1*iu;yi 
^<i^"^  very  likely  stands  for  '^  :ni,  I  e.  the  ])1]VV^  of  the  first 
day  of  the  feast,  or,  more  probably  still,  the  first  )1"itt^y  of  the 
feast  (of  Tabernacles).^ 

115.  Although  the  idea  contained  in  the  catchword  of  Sifre 
has  been  preserved  by  most  of  the  subsequent  Jewish  testimonies, 
still,  the  place  that  Sifre  assigned  to  the  Nequdoth  has  been  con- 
fused in  many  of  them.  Sifre  itself,  by  leaving  undetermined  which 
one  of  the  two  ]ntl^y  should  be  pointed,  is  partly  responsible  for 
the  various  changes  in  that  respect.  In  almost  all  cases,  however, 
we  can  still  detect  the  probable  reason  for  the  deviation. 

In  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (1),  we  read,  "r'»D  ]'nw  ^y  "lipj" 
which  it  refers  to  the  second  ])^]i;V-  This,  in  the  rubric  on  which 
Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  depends,  was  probably  intended  to  mean 

1  The  commentary  of  Kashi  also  had  ^"Tlp^^D,  but  was  corrected  by  the  author 
of  n^D"lp?2  r\:2ZTt,  into  *i^)]):i)2,  in  order  to  make  it  agree  with  the  text  of  the 
Talmud  ;  see  Rabbinowicz,  ibid. 

^  Cp.  Frensdorff,  Ochlah  w^Ochlah,  n.  96  and  the  note  to  it  p.  28  ;  the  Paris  MS. 
of  Ochlah  w^Ochlah  reads  :^ni  N?0"lp,  ibid. 


98  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

that  the  ]T\M)'^  with  the  waw,  i.  e.  ]TlU^yi,  should  be  pointed. 
Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  apparently  read  ^the  waw  of  yi'^^^J  is  pointed/ 
and  as  in  the  Biblical  passage  it  read  ^  yi^WV  11"1  Wl/  it  naturally 
understood  the  rubric  as  referring  to  the  second  ]11OT?  iii  which 
the  conjunctive  waw  does  not  appear.  The  addition  of  DV  blV 
")!)  ]Wb^ir\  31tO,  has  been  sufficiently  explained  above  in  Mena- 
choth.     The  reason  given  for  the  pointing  is  that  of  Sifre. 

116,  Soferim  also,  reproduces  a  tradition  according  to  which 
the  second  waw  of  the  second  mwV  should  be  pointed ;  it  says, 
^"llp:  ^Wn  ])^WV2W  Y^)/  but,  asMiiller^  remarks,  ^wn  should  be 
referred  to  V""!  and  not  to  IHIL^y ;  consequently,  we  should  read 
"^Wn  ])'l]VVW  )'^)j  instead  of  ]n^V2^?  and  thus  it  would  agree 
with  Menachoth  and  Massorah.  As  Soferim  had  a  Biblical  verse 
'  ])^1VV  ]^1'il^V/  there  was  no  jnii^y  with  two  waws  to  justify  the 
rubric  ^wn  ....  1  ''I,  and,  therefore,  it  referred  "^wn  to  ])^WV  = 
the  second  jn^y. 

117.  Bemidbar  Rabba — cp.  one  MS.  of  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan 

(1)'— says,  i^b^  1'ch'o  PiDD  biv  ]Wi^'^  "iHx  ])'^mv  bv  "np:i' 

'"in^n  "in^<  ]nw  ^b^  'O^V  ^^"l.^  It  is  to  be  noted  that  with 
the  exception  of  the  clause  HDC  b'\V  ]Wi^1  Itl^,  it  corresponds 
exactly  to  Sifre  in  the  reason  which  it  assigns  for  the  Nequdoth, 
Unlike  any  other  Jewish  document,  it  tells  us  that  it  is  one  of 
the  Vi^'WV  required  for  the  feast  of  the  Passover,  which  should  be 
pointed,  i.  e.,  one  of  the  XTWV  iti  Num.  xxviii,  21.  It  is  hard 
to  see  the  origin  of  this  unexpected  statement.  The  reading 
]yw^*\  "ini<  ]ywv  is  very  likely  due  to  the  abbreviation  K  jTHW, 
which  some  reconstructed  "int<  jn^y,  and  others  ]W^'^  \^rwv ;  the 
compiler  of  Bemidbar  Rabba  placed  the  two  readings  side  by 
side,  as  is  often  done,  and  thus  we  have  ]1li;X"1  "iriK  Jl'^ti^y.  The 
presence  of  riDD  b'^  instead  of  in  ^^,  which  creates  the  main 
difficulty,  is  probably  traceable  to  some  such  rubric  as  is  found  in 
the  Massoretic  list  on  Num.  iii,  39,  viz.,  ^im  \\^W  ='^  TH  'WV, 
i.  e.,  'the  first  jnii;^,'  as  above.     Bemidbar  Rabba  referred  'K  to 

1  Soferim,  p.  89  f . 

2  Schechter,  p.  101,  n.  28. 

3  Some  editions  read  differently  •  •  •  '  ^^b^D  .in  b^'  ]Wi<-\  bt'  ]Wi<')  pit!?}?  b^  "Ilpi '. 
See  appendix,  ad  locum. 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  90 

:n,  and  read,  'one  ]nw  of  the  first  feast  is  pointed.'  As  the 
first  of  the  great  feasts  mentioned  in  the  context  is  the  Passover, 
xxviii,  16  ff.,  it  was  more  accurately  determined  by  replacing 
'  K  Iflhy  its  supposed  equivalent,  '  HDD.'  ^ 

118.  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (2)  and  Midr.  Mishle  point  the 
second  ]1*1TO.  The  reason  for  this  is  obvious :  both  read  their 
Biblical  text  ^])^WV  ])^m\^  and  as  Sifre  says  that  ])1]VV  is 
pointed,  they  naturally  pointed  the  second  in  which  there  is  no 
conjunctive  waw  (see  above  the  remarks  on  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan 
(1)).  The  explanations  given  of  the  Points  by  these  two  sources 
are  different  from  any  of  those  which  we  have  seen  so  far, 
"nilinti^y  ^W  ])V^  rvn  nb'il^'^  (Midr.  Mishle),  but  they  may  be 
an  echo  of  Sifre  denying  the  existence  of  a  second  Issaron,  and 
of  Menachoth  forbidding,  on  account  of  the  Nequdoih,  any  exten- 
sion to  be  derived  from  the  presence  of  two  lll^y. 

From  what  precedes,  we  can  safely  conclude  that  originally  one 
of  the  Issarons  was  entirely  pointed — presumably  the  first,  but 
possibly  also,  the  second, — and  that  the  points  were  devised  to  cancel 
it.  It  should  be  noted  further  that  while  the  place  of  the  Nequ- 
doih  has  been  confused  in  various  ways,  so  as  to  render  the  expla- 
nations inappropriate,  still  we  know  that  they  have  been  placed 
on  letters  which  were  missing  in  some  MSS.  or  recensions.  Appar- 
ently, here,  as  in  other  cases,  the  absence  of  these  letters  in  MSS. 
and  recensions  made  the  deviation  easier ;  and  hence,  it  would 
seem  that  there  always  existed  at  least  a  faint  idea  about  the 
function  that  the  Nequdoth  were  intended  to  fulfil. 


^See,  with  reference  to  the  MS.  of  Aboth  de  K.  Nathan  (1),  Blau,  MU,  p.  16. 
As  to  the  variant  t^n  b^'  ]Wi<'\  biD  p2;xn  ^ll^?:?  see  Blau,  3fU,  p.  16.  Of  course 
the  presence  of  HDD  instead  of  ^H,  may  be  simply  an  oversight :  the  author  having 
still  in  his  mind  the  word  nDD,  mentioned  a  few  lines  before,  for  Num.  ix,  10. 


100  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 


Deuteeonomy  XXIX,  28. 

rmjvh  rb^v  ^v  li^J^^i  ^^b  n^ijm  ^Tr^\W  r\'\rrh  nnnojn 

119.  The  whole  verse  seems  to  be  an  interpolation,  and  F. 
Hummelauer  ^  admits  that  it  was  introduced  only  by  the  final 
editor,  to  take  the  place  of  a  whole  anecdote  which  he  did  not 
care  to  narrate.  Whatever  may  be  said  of  that  supposition,  it 
is  evident  that  the  dots  were  not  appended  to  indicate  the  inter- 
polation of  the  whole  verse,  and  that  the  verse  was  accepted  as 
genuine  when  the  Nequdoih  were  placed.  Apart  from  this  fact, 
there  does  not  seem  to  exist  anything  critically  doubtful,  though 
the  exegesis  of  the  verse  varies  considerably  according  to  authors. 
The  only  trace  of  divergent  readings  is  the  omission  of  im^^<  mn''^ 
by  Kenn.  109,  which  connects  nnno^H  with  I^JD'?!  1:i^.  It  is  to 
be  noted  also,  that  the  Ixx  uses  the  second  person  instead  of  the 
first,   ^  060)  vfia)Vj^   ^  (f)avepa  vfJLtv/  '  tckvol^  vfiojvJ' 

Sanhedrin  43b,  the  oldest  document  with  regard  to  the  place  of 
the  Nequdothy  places  them  over  Ij;  "IJ^JD^'l  IJ^*.  This  has  become 
the  general  tradition  in  subsequent  Jewish  works.  Thus,  most 
MSS.  of  Soferim,^  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (1),  reproduced  in  Arukh 
s.  V.  "IpJ,  Leqach  Tob  (ad  locum)  ^  Bemidbar  Rabba ;  thus  also, 
Rashi  and  the  Tosafist  on  Sanhedrin  43b,  Ba'al  ha-Turim  on 
Deut.  xxix,  28  ;  thus  finally,  the  Massoretic  list  on  Num.  iii,  39, 
and  almost  all  MSS.  and  editions  The  Massorah  Parva  in  the 
editions  of  Venice,  1524,  1548,  1617  f.,  and  Basel,  1619  f.  reads 
simply  ^  rrmriD  irmpj  '^/  but  Norzi,  Michaelis,  Ginsburg,  have  the 
rubric  ^milpJ  ^'^/  ^.  e.,  11  points.  Baer's  Diqduqe  ha-Te'amim 
and  Ochlah  w^Ochlah  agree  in  pointing  "ly  iJ''>i3^'i  ij^.  Others, 
however,  such  as  the  Paris  cod.  of  Soferim  ^  and  some  Biblical  mss.,^ 

^  Hummelauer,  Coram,  on  DeuL,  483  ;  cp.  EB.,  1901,  610  ;  according  to  Hum- 
melauer,  it  is  '' glossa  et  suspirium  rectacto^ns"  (!). 
^Miiller,  Soferim,  90. 
^Ed.  Padua,  Deuteron.,  p.  101. 
*Miiller,  Soferim,  90. 
^Michaelis,  Bibl.  Hebr.,  ad  locum. 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  101 

omit  the  point  on  the  'Ayin  of  "Ij;.  Aboth  de  K.  Nathan  (2)  places  the 
dots  over  n^Jl^m,  bat  this  is  certainly  a  mistake,  and  in  the  sub- 
sequent explanations  it  refers  to  a  tradition  according  to  which 
Ij;  \^'^':itb\  S^b  should  probably  also  be  pointed,  ^lipj  lit^  x^ni 
[)^''yn]  («n)  nj;  i6^.'  Sifre  leaves  the  place  of  the  Points 
undertermined  with  regard  to  the  exact  letters ;  this  is  also  the 
case  in  Leqach  Tob  (list),  Midr.  Mishle,^  and  Diqduqe  ha-Te'amim. 

120.  If  we  turn  now  to  the  explanations  given  of  the  points, 
it  is  well  nigh  impossible  to  see  how  they  could  have  been 
suggested  by  the  pointing  of  'y  IJ^'J^^I  ^^.  As  remarked  above, 
most  scholars  who  hold  the  Nequdoth  to  have  a  critical  value 
make  an  exception  for  this  passage  and  grant  that  here  the 
points  are  merely  exegetical.  Few,  however,  agree  as  to  what 
the  exegetical  peculiarity  is.  Besides,  as  is  evident  from  the  con- 
clusion reached  in  a  previous  chapter,  there  is  a  strong  presumption 
against  attributing  to  the  dots  such  an  exegetical  import.  Finally, 
whatever  may  be  made  of  the  pointing  of  lyjD^I  13^,  no  satisfac- 
tory reason  has  ever  been  adduced  for  the  pointing  of  the  *Ayin 
in  nj;.^  Nor  can  it  be  said  that  originally  the  *Ayin  was  not 
pointed,  for  it  is  hard  to  see  why  this  letter  should  have  been 
added  to  li'^J^^I  ^^7.  There  cannot  have  been  an  influence  from 
the  early  explanations,  which,  as  far  as  we  know,  do  not  take  the 
'Ayin  into  consideration.  It  is  far  more  probable  that,  as  the 
reason  for  its  being  pointed  was  not  known,  it  was  left  out  by 
some  of  the  subsequent  works.  We  are  therefore  led  to  assume — 
at  least  as  a  hypothesis  to  be  verified — that  there  has  been  some 
confusion  on  this  passage. 

121.  Sifre, — reproduced  in  Leqach  Tob  (list),  Yalqut,^  and 
Bemidbar  Kabba, — tells  us  that  points  have  been  placed,  because, 
says  the  Lord,  "  when  you  shall  have  fulfilled  the  things  that  are 
revealed  I  will  also  make  known  to  you  the  things  that  are 
concealed."  Hence  we  conclude  that  n"inDJn  as  well  as  vhlT^ 
will  belong  to  us  if  we  fulfil  w^hat  has  already  been  revealed  to 
us.     Let   us   first  investigate  the  import  of  the  condition  that 

iThe  editor  has  added  ir:i2bl  lib  hv  "lipi. 

2  See  V.  g.  Eashi  on  Sanh.  43b ;  Ba'al  ha-Turim,  on  Deut.  xxix,  28. 

3  §722. 


102  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

is  set  for  the  possession  of  n'lnDJn.  This  condition  seems  to 
be  nothing  else  but  the  second  half  of  the  Biblical  verse : 
" .  .  .  .  nD"l  ^D  riK  ni  W^ '' ;  h,  with  the  infin.  est.  that  follows, 
is  taken  as  representing  the  cause  for  the  preceding  clause  (cp. 
Gen.  iii,  22;  xxxiv,  7,  15;  Ex.  xxiii,  2;  1  Sam.  xii,  17;  xiv, 
33,  etc.).  So  that  Sifre  apparently  translates  m^y^  as  'by 
fulfilling,^  or  'in  that  you  shall  have  fulfilled.'  Again,  D^l^in 
of  Sifre  refers  to  DKin  nninn  nm  ^D  T\^  (Deut.  xxix,  28)  for, 
although  both  the  Biblical  D^i^n  and  the  D^'l^ll  of  Sifre  are 
equivalent  to  HIH  IDDD  D^DDDn  ....  nDI  ^D  nt<  of  Deut.  xxviii, 
58  (cp.  XXX,  11-14),  still,  it  is  probable  that  Sifre  does  not  intend 
to  replace  the  Biblical  n^^JH  by  D'll^in,  which  it  has  itself;  if 
such  had  been  its  intention,  it  would  have  used  n^^l^H  instead 
of  D'll^Iin,  as  it  does  for  rrnno^n.  The  reason,  therefore,  for 
which    we    shall    possess    n^DD^n,    is    according    to    Sifre    the 

"  T\^^^\  nninn  nm  ^d  r\^  r\W)h  ^'  of  that  verse. 

122.  The  second  half  of  the  catchword  of  Sifre,  and  the  most 
important  for  us,  viz.  'I  will  also  make  known  to  you  the  things 
that  are  concealed'  clearly  indicates  that  the  DiriDJn  as  well  as 
the  ThlT\  will  belong  to  us  and  our  children.  If  so,  we  should 
refer  ninojn  to  I^JD^*)  ^:b  and  leave  out  the  two  divine  names 
')i%1^i<  ^\^Tyh-  In  that  case,  it  is  true,  we  would  expect  Sifre  to 
tell  us,  'the  concealed  things  belong  to  us  and  not  to  Yahweh  our 
God '  instead  of  '  I  will  also  make  known  to  you,'  etc.,  but  such 
an  expression,  apart  from  the  fact  that  strictly  speaking  it  would 
not  be  correct,  as  our  knowledge  of  revealed  things  does  not 
exclude  but  supposes  the  divine  science,  would  have  seemed 
derogatory  to  the  dignity  of  God.  Consequently,  while  the  idea 
was  preserved,  it  was  framed  in  terms  more  respectful  to  the 
Divinity.  The  Nequdoth  would  thus  fall  on  imW  r\)tVb  and  not 
on  'j;  )y^2b)  1J^.  This  was  already  the  view  of  Kashi  and  of  the 
Tosafist,  on  Sanh.  43b.  The  latter  besides,  gives  us  what  may  be 
considered  the  true  reason  for  the  pointing  of  *Ayin  in  iy  along 
with  irJD^I  )}b,  viz.,  in  order  to  make  up  eleven  points,  corres- 
ponding to  the  eleven  letters  of  ^J^1^K  mrT*^. 

By  leaving  aside  ^i^'l^X  mn''^,  we  understand  at  once  the  catch- 
word of  Sifre ;  with  it  we  may  translate  the  Biblical  verse,  '  the 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  103 

hidden  as  well  as  the  revealed  things  will  belong  to  us  and  to  our     \ 
children  for  ever,  if  we  fulfil  (by  our  having  fulfilled)    all  the 
contents  of  this  Law ' ;  hence  the  catchword  '  when  you  shall  have 
fulfilled  the  things  that  are  revealed,  I  will  also  make  known  to  you 
the  things  that  are  concealed.' 

123.  The  reason  why  ^y^y:h^  IJ^  has  been  chosen  to  replace 
^Trh^  TWrvh,  is  probably  due  to  the  fact  that,  as  l^^n^l  *1J^  is 
to  take  the  place  of  ^y^r^h^  v:\rob  in  interpretation,  they  should 
also  be  substituted  for  them  in  receiving  the  points.  It  is  possible, 
however,  as  Rashi  tells  us,^  and  as  is  the  case  in  Kenn.  109,  that 
1^33^*1  1J^  should  actually  be  transposed  before  Tb)>T\ ;  thus  the 
Nequdoth,  while  primarily  cancelling  ^J^"I^^?  iTi^'^by  would  also 
remind  the  student  that  l^'ij^^l  ):h  was  not  in  its  proper  place. 
In  both  cases,  the  'Ayin  has  been  added  only  to  make  up  the 
required  number  of  points,  viz.,  eleven. 

124.  As  to  Sanhedrin,  43b,^  we  simply  confess  our  inability 
to  grasp  the  exact  bearing  of  the  explanations  it  gives  of  the 
Nequdoth.  The  sense  of  the  passage  is  not  clear.^  Probably,  it 
is  meant  that,  had  there  not  been  points,  we  should  have  to  say 
that  God  did  not  punish  Israel  on  account  of  the  secret  sins  of  the 
individual,  not  only  before,  but  also  after,  the  Israelites  had  crossed 
the  Jordan.  The  points  modify  the  passage  so  that  the  Israelites 
were  not  responsible  for  such  sins  before  they  had  crossed  the 
Jordan,  but  henceforth,  they  were  made  responsible  and  would  be 
punished  unless  they  should  avert  divine  wrath  by  punishing  such 
sins  themselves.  From  this  we  can  infer  that  as  soon  as  the 
Israelites  were  in  the  promised  land  and  the  contents  of  the  verse 
in  question  became  binding  on  them,  the  niDDjn,  here  under- 
stood as  ^  hidden  sins,'  should  not  be  reserved  to  God  but  should 
be  the  concern  of  Israel,  '  ):^::ib)  13^.'  The  words  ^J^n^^?  niiT^ 
are  virtually  non-existent,  were  not  written  by  the  sacred  writer, 
and  the  Points  stigmatize  them;  the  clause  'after  they  had 
crossed  the  Jordan '  is  simply  a  means  to  rivet  attention,  and 

lOn  Sanh.  43b. 


^  See  Arukh,  s.  v.  'Hpl 


^Cp.  Kashi,  ad  locum  ;  Levy,  Neuhehr.  WtbcL,  m,  435  ;  Bacher,  Agad.  d.  Tann.f 
II,  241 ;  Blau,  MU,  57  f . ;  see  besides,  the  context  in  Sanhedr. 


104  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

morally  represents  the  time  of  composition  of  Deuteronomy,  since, 
as  soon  as  this  law  became  obligatory,  *im^^<  ^^"^*'^  had  to  be 
left  out.  Before  the  Israelites  had  crossed  the  Jordan,  L  e.,  before 
the  promulgation  of  this  law,  such  responsibility  for  sins  that 
could  not  be  seen,  was  not  to  be  assumed,  and  consequently,  it  was 
maintained  that  rTiriDJn  had  belonged  to  God  exclusively,  and 
that  Israel  was  not  responsible. 

The  explanations  of  Sanhedrin  are  preserved  in  Leqach  Tob 
(ad  loGum),  which  besides,  adds  that  the  pointed  words  ^y^yih^  ^h 
are  annulled,  "DJ^^  I'pXD  nmpl"  ^ 

125,  Aboth  de  E.  Nathan  (2),  although  pointing  n^:i:im  (read 
'V  l^^'Jn^l  1J^)>  seems  to  take  only  'd?^V  '^V  i^ito  consideration ; 
besides,  it  has  nothing  but  Midrashic  speculations  which  are  found 
nowhere  else,  and  which  apparently  have  no  reference  to  the 
Points.  It  is  interesting  to  note,  however,  that  in  connection  with 
the  explanations  of  the  Nequdoth,  the  document  in  question 
reproduces  the  passage  relative  to  the  suspended  Nun  of  niL^  D, 
Jud.  xviii,  30,  and  would,  therefore,  seem  to  attribute  to  the  dots 
the  same  function  as  the  suspension  of  the  Nun,  i.  e.  the  value  of 
a  dele.^  It  is  probable,  however,  that  the  editor  of  Aboth  de  R. 
Nathan  (2)  has  been  guided  simply  by  the  expression  ^<D^  "iTlvS 
which  is  found  in  reference  to  the  suspended  Nun^  and  occurs  also 
in  its  own  explanation  of  the  Points. 

126.  A  different  interpretation  given  of  Sifre,  etc.,  by  Mayer 
Lambert,^  is  substantially  as  follows.  According  to  the  present 
Biblical  verse  it  would  seem  that  the  concealed  things  belong  to 
God  for  ever  ^  d?^V  ^V/  ^-s  the  revealed  things  belong  to  us  for 
ever.  Sifre  tells  us  that  at  some  future  date,  viz.,  when  we  shall 
have  performed  the  revealed  things,  God  will  give  up  the  exclusive 
possession  of  the  n^HD^n ;  hence,  Sifre  implies  that  these  mriDJ 
do  not  belong  to  God  for  ever  and  consequently  D^iy  ly  should  be 
left  out.  In  the  same  way,  in  Sanh.  43b.,  we  are  told  that  ub^V  '^V 
'  for  ever '  is  suppressed  with  regard  to  the  period  anterior  to  the 
crossing  of  the  Jordan  ;  until  then,  according  to  R.  Juda,  the  secret 

^  Cp.  Ibn  Ezra,  on  Deut.  xxix,  28. 

2Cp.  Blau,  MU,  46  ff.;  Ginsburg,  Introd.,  334  f.;  Konigsberger,  MuTK,  59  ff. 

^  Les  Paints  Extraordinaires,  KEJ,  xxx,  116-118. 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  105 

sins,  and  according  to  R.  Nehemiah,  even  the  manifest  sins,  had 
not  been  punished;  accordingly,  rh^V  "I^  should  be  cancelled. 
How  did  it  happen  that  'j;  IIi'iJ^^I  1^^  was  pointed  instead  of 
D^i;;  Ij;?  Probably  from  the  misapprehension  of  a  rubric, 
'  "npJ  'V  "IJ^ '  =  Irh^lV  ^V,  understood  as  '  it  is  pointed  as  far  as 
the  "Ayin^  =  mpj  [j-ilj;  nj;. 

127.  This  is  certainly  a  very  tempting  hypothesis ;  still,  it 
has  much  against  it.  It  is  not  clear  why  two  words,  and  not  one 
or  three,  should  have  been  selected  to  justify  the  rubric  *"llpj  )''y  "Ij;*' 
Neither  is  it  clear,  why  in  many  Mss.  the  Masso7'ah  parva  men- 
tions explicitly  the  number  of  the  points,  ^  eleven,'  ^  unless  there 
was  a  reason  to  do  so,  which  reason  hardly  exists,  if  we  suppose 
that  'j;  IJ'^JD?!  )j?  was  pointed  in  good  faith,  although  wrongly. 
Again  in  the  Biblical  verse,  nb)V  '^V  primarily  refers  to  n^ijn ; 
it  would  be  surprising,  that  in  the  early  documents,  this  word  is 
not  taken  into  consideration,  and  that  the  opposition  is  made 
between  r\)rvb  n^inDjn  and  )}h  nnriDJn ;  if  the  hypothesis  of 
Lambert  were  right  we  would  rather  expect  some  such  catchword 
as  :  '  there  are  points  because  the  revealed  things  do  not  belong  to 
us  for  ever.' 

Finally,  we  do  not  see  why  the  crossing  of  the  Jordan  would 
have  been  selected  by  Sauhedrin  as  the  time  when  the  rTinDin 
will  become  our  concern,  1J''JD^"I  1J^.  We,  therefore,  prefer  the  view 
explained  above,  according  to  which  "IJTl^N  rorvh  should  be 
cancelled. 

128.  We  have  now  to  examine  the  clause  found  in  Aboth  de  R. 
Nathan  (1  and  2)  and  also  in  Bemidbar  Rabba  at  the  end  of  their 
respective  lists.     In  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (1)  it  reads  as  follows : 

i^D''  DX  xniy  iQK  p  ^b^  n'ob  ^v:^^  'v  hv^  )y^:2b)  V^b  bv  "iip:j'' 
]rvbv  ^mpj  "iDD  1^  ""jx  ^12)^  np  nDHD  hd  ^:dd  ^b  no^<''i  i.t^n 
:]n^^yo  mipj  niny^?  nnriD  r\B^  ^b  noii<  n^)''    Whether  this 

clause  refers  to  the  ten  dotted  passages  of  the  Pentateuch,  or  should 
be  restricted  to   Deut.  xxix,   28,  is  still  matter  of  discussion. - 

1  See  above,  §  119. 

2  Blau,  MU,  7f.;  Ginsburg,  Introd.,  320  ;  Konig.,  Eird.,  p.  32,  n.  1 ;  these  three 
scholars  extend  the  clause  to  all  the  pointed  passages.  Konigsberger,  MuTKy  p. 
27,  restricts  it  to  the  verse  under  consideration. 


106  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (2),  though  possibly  applying  it  to  all  the 
passages,  more  probably  refers  only  to  Deuteronomy  when  it  says, 
'  why  are  all  these  letters  pointed  ? '  This  is  better  understood  of 
the  eleven  letters  of  that  passage,  than  of  the  letters  of  all  the  other 
passages  combined.  Bemidbar  Rabba  more  probably  restricts  the 
clause  to  Dent.,  for,  although  it  is  not  probable  that  the  abbrevia- 
tion X'''"]  means  ^and  eleven,' — the  eleven  letters  of  IJTl^N  niH''?,^ 
— still,  it  does  seem  that  we  have  to  deal  with  an  alternative 
explanation  of  the  Points,  for  this  passage  is  similar  to  other 
occurrences  in  the  same  document,  where  such  alternative  catch- 
words are  given.  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (1),  as  it  stands  and  as  it 
is  quoted  in  Arukh,^  evidently  restricts  this  clause  to  Deuteronomy, 
for  it  has  a  special  explanation  for  every  pointed  passage,  and  it 
would  have  none  for  this  one,  unless  it  applies  the  above  clause  to 
it.  Besides,  the  very  wording  of  this  first  recension  would  leave 
but  little  doubt  as  to  the  intention  of  its  author  to  limit  the  ex- 
planation to  this  passage;  it  says:  "I^JD^I  IJ?  and  the  M^/m  of 
nj;  are  pointed,  why  ?  But  thus  says  Ezra,"  etc. ;  it  is  clear 
that  the  explanation  given,  forms  an  answer  to  the  question  ^  why 
have  these  letters  been  pointed  ? '  It  is,  however,  the  opinion  of 
Schechter  ^  and  Blau  *  that  here,  there  is  an  omission  which  is  to 
be  supplied  from  the  second  recension.  Still  the  omission,  if 
omission  there  be,  is  very  old,  as  our  present  reading  is  found  in 
Arukh.  It  is  to  be  noted  besides,  that  in  the  passage  relative  to 
the  Points,  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (1)  is  generally  free  from  such 
strongly  speculative  explanations,  as  are  found  in  the  second 
recension  on  Deuter.  xxix,  28.  In  any  case,  even  if  we  grant  the 
omission  of  a  whole  clause,  it  would  still  remain  doubtful  whether 
it  should  be  understood  of  all  the  pointed  passages  or  only  of 
Deuteronomy. 

129.  The  obvious  meaning  of  the  words  of  Ezra  is  that  the 
Nequdoth  mark  these  letters  as  critically  doubtful.  On  the  one 
hand,   since   Elias  can  pronounce  against   them,    they    may   be 

^  Thus  would  Konigsberger,  I.  c. ,  have  it  rendered. 

^  Aboth  de  B.  Nathan,  p.  101,  n.  29, 
^MU,  8. 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Peniateuch,  10? 

spurious,  and  on  the  other,  since  the  same  Elias  can  approve  of 
their  having  been  written,  they  may  be  genuine,  in  which  latter 
case,  Ezra  would  remove  the  points.  Therefore,  these  letters  are 
doubtful,  and  Ezra  himself  cannot  pronounce  on  their  spurious- 
ness  or  their  genuineness.  The  interpretation  given  by  Konig, 
who,  on  the  strength  of  this  passage,  makes  the  points  express  a 
mere  interrogation  mark,  hardly  does  justice  to  the  words  of  Ezra ; 
for,  if  such  an  authority  as  Elias  is  needed  to  solve  the  difficulty,  there 
must  have  been  more  than  a  slight  suspicion  with  regard  to  their 
genuineness.  Besides,  if  Elias  blames  Ezra  for  having  written 
them,  Ezra  has  an  answer  ready,  viz.,  that  he  has  already  marked 
them  with  points,  and  this  is  almost  the  same  as  not  having  written 
them  at  all. 

However,  if  this  clause  be  restricted  to  Deuteronomy,  it  is 
permissible  to  see  in  it  a  means  to  avoid  pronouncing  the  two 
divine  names  spurious,  although  they  might  have  been  considered 
as  positively  interpolated.  The  responsibility  was  left  to  Elias  to 
reject  or  retain  im^K  mn''^,  and  if  he  chose  to  keep  these  words, 
then  it  rested  with  him  to  sanction  them  and  give  them  the  true 
sacredness  which  they  had  hitherto  lacked. 


108  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 


CONCLUSION. 

130.  Before  examining  the  various  theories  in  detail,  let  us 
call  the  reader's  attention  to  a  few  facts,  which,  we  think,  must  be 
admitted  regardless  of  the  opinions  that  one  may  hold. 

(1.)  As  shown  in  the  preceding  pages,  the  Extraordinary 
Points  bear  only  on  single  words  and  letters ;  consequently, 
whether  they  mark  a  special  exegesis  or  a  striking  feature  of  the 
text,  whether  they  express  discrepancies  between  mss.  or  critical 
doubts,  or  whether  they  condemn  some  elements,  it  is  certain  that 
for  many  other  striking  features,  discrepancies,  doubts,  or  words 
and  letters  to  be  condemned,  but  bearing  on  longer  Biblical  clauses, 
the  dots  have  not  been  used. 

(2.)  Again,  in  almost  all  passages,  we  have  seen  that  the  Points 
bear  on  words  and  letters  which,  though  found  in  our  present 
textus  receptus,  were  omitted  in  other  recensions ;  it  therefore 
follows  that  whatever  be  the  import  of  the  Nequdoth,  it  so 
happened  that  other  striking  features,  or  critical  judgments,  were 
not  expressed  by  them. 

(3.)  It  is  also  noteworthy  that,  although  the  primitive  tradi- 
tion with  regard  to  the  place  of  the  Points  has  not  always  been 
preserved,  still,  the  later  Jewish  works  have  generally  placed 
them  over  letters  or  words  not  found  in  all  mss.  or  recensions ; 
and,  as  we  may  safely  presume,  the  Rabbis  must  have  been  induced 
thereto  from  the  conviction  that,  owing  to  their  function,  the 
Nequdoth  would  be  better  justified  when  placed  on  these  other 
letters  or  words. 

A.    The  Theory  of  Chance  and  Accident. 

131.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  insist  on  the  unfounded  char- 
acter of  the  opinion  of  Richard  Simon  and  others,  who  make  the 
Points  the  outcome  of  chance  and  accident.  This  view  is  altogether 
too  much  a  priori.  It  would  be  a  wise  chance  indeed,  that  would 
place  the  Points  only  on  letters  critically  doubtful.     Again,  we  are 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  109 

unable  to  see  why  occasionally  only  one  letter  is  pointed,  while  in 
other  cases  as  many  as  eleven  are  so  marked.  This,  if  nothing 
else,  would  make  it  certain  that  the  view  of  Richard  Simon  is 
untenable. 

B.    The  Exegetical  View. 

132.  We  already  rejected  this  view  as  incompatible  with  the 
mental  attitude  of  the  Jews  at  the  time  when  the  Nequdoth 
originated,  and  as  unheard  of  in  Palaeography.^  From  the  pre- 
ceding analysis  of  the  individual  passages,  it  must  be  clear  to  the 
reader  that  neither  Textual  Criticism,  nor  the  catchwords  of  Sifre, 
etc.,  will  allow  this  hypothesis  to  stand.  The  catchwords  of  Sifre, 
and  in  most  cases,  those  of  the  other  Jewish  writings — after  the 
Haggadic  amplifications  have  been  removed — can  be  justified  only 
by  leaving  aside  the  dotted  words  or  letters ;  hence,  it  follows  that 
not  only  no  special  exegesis  is  derived  from  the  dotted  letters,  but 
that  on  the  contrary,  in  real  exegesis  they  should  not  be  inter- 
preted at  all ;  this  further  supposes  the  Points  to  have  been  devised 
to  annul  the  elements  over  which  they  were  placed,  by  throwing  at 
least  a  suspicion  on  their  genuineness. 

133.  Besides,  Textual  Criticism  shows  that,  in  almost  all 
cases,  the  Points  have  been  placed  on  words  or  letters  regarding 
which  the  various  recensions  disagreed.  In  view  of  these  facts, 
could  it  be  seriously  maintained  that  out  of  the  many  passages  on 
which  a  special  exegesis  might  have  been  based,  the  Rabbis  marked 
with  points  only  those  words  or  letters  which  were  not  universally 
acknowledged  to  be  genuine?  It  is  true  that  Haggadic  specula- 
tions were  often  based  on  letters  considered  as  superfluous,  but  a 
superfluous  letter,  in  so  far  as  it  was  made  the  basis  for  a  special 
interpretation,  is  not  at  all  synonymous  with  a  letter  critically 
doubtful  or  spurious.  Furthermore,  as  the  Points  form  an  official 
feature  of  the  text,  the  supposed  exegesis  would  seem  to  have  been 
officially  connected  with  that  text,  and  this  still  more  increases  the 
improbability  that  such  doubtful  letters  should  have  been  chosen 

iCp.  above,  §§42-55. 


110  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

for  an  exegetical  purpose.  Again,  from  the  viewpoint  of  the 
Rabbis,  this  special  meaning  was  intended  by  God,  and  it  is  but 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  they  must  have  felt  rather  sure  of 
the  divine  origin  and  genuineness  of  the  textual  elements  from 
which  they  derived  such  views.  If  the  exegetical  theory  were  true, 
they  would  have  done  just  the  reverse. 

134.  We  hardly  lessen  the  difficulty  by  saying  that  occasion- 
ally Textual  Criticism  does  not  throw  suspicion  over  the  words 
originally  pointed,  v.  g.^  Gen.  xix,  33  and  Deut.  xxix,  28.  When 
using  Textual  Criticism,  we  never  claimed  that  in  the  present  state 
of  our  knowledge,  we  should  necessarily  and  in  all  cases  find  dis- 
crepancies among  MSS.  or  recensions.  Sifre,  on  Gen.  xix,  33, 
whatever  may  have  been  the  reason  for  rejecting  noipDI,  clearly 
indicates  that  this  word  should  be  cancelled.  As  to  Deuteronomy 
xxix,  28,  apart  from  the  fact  that  one  MS.  does  not  reproduce  the 
pointed  words,  it  may  be  asked,  why  did  not  the  Jews  place  the 
Points  over  the  two  divine  names  ?  Since  they  felt  no  scruple  in 
putting  the  vowel-points  on  these  names,  why  should  they  have 
refrained  from  marking  them  with  dots,  if  dots  had  simply  ex- 
pressed a  special  interpretation,  or — a  remark  which  goes  against 
Konigsberger — called  attention  to  the  unusual  presence  of  these 
words  ?  If  we  admit  that  the  Points  have  the  value  of  a  dele^  or 
at  least  express  a  strong  doubt  as  to  genuineness,  all  is  explained 
naturally.  We  know  that  it  was  forbidden  to  erase  any  of  the 
divine  names,  even  when  written  wrongly ;  ^  the  same  idea 
of  reverence  that  prompted  the  Jews  not  to  remove  the  divine 
names  even  in  such  cases,  induced  them  also  not  to  place  upon 
them  the  dots,  which  were  the  equivalent  of  an  erasure.  In  any 
case,  the  reluctance  to  point  the  divine  names  indicates  much  more 
than  a  mere  exegetical  peculiarity. 

We  feel  therefore  compelled  to  reject  this  Exegetical  theory 
as  not  giving  us  the  true  purpose  for  which  the  Nequdoih  were 
appended. 

^Makkoth,  22a  ;  Shebu'oth,  35  a  and  b  ;  Soferim,  iv,  1,  etc.  Cp.Waehner,  Ant. 
Ebrceor.,  Sect,  i,  §  362,  vol.  i,  pp.  198  f.;  Blau,  Alth.  Buchw.,  165  f.;  MuUer, 
Soferim,  58  ff. 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  111 

C.     Theory  of  Italics. 

135.  The  reader  doubtless  remembers  that  Konigsberger  re- 
jects both  Textual  Criticism  and  the  Jewish  writings  as  means  of 
determining  the  purpose  of  the  Nequdoth}  This  is  undoubtedly- 
very  significant,  and  he  himself  grants  that  his  theory  cannot  claim 
the  support  of  either.  In  fact,  from  what  precedes,  there  is  very 
little  doubt  that  his  system  is  incorrect.  The  very  existence  of 
recensions  not  having  the  dotted  words  or  letters,  would  alone 
make  it  probable  that  the  Points  are  in  some  way  connected  with 
these  discrepancies ;  and  if  we  would  still  maintain  that  the  dots 
indicate  that  the  elements  over  which  they  were  placed  were  to  be 
retained,  it  should  not  be  said  with  Konigsberger  that  it  was  done 
in  contradistinction  to  other  parallel  passages,  but  rather  in  oppo- 
sition to  some  MSS.  or  recensions,  which  left  them  out ;  thus  we 
would  fall  into  the  theory  that  makes  the  Points  mark  discrepan- 
cies between  mss. 

136.  Besides,  Konigsberger  supposes  a  work  of  comparison  to 
have  taken  place  between  the  various  parallel  passages — a  work 
which  we  ourselves  advocate.  But  how  would  he  account  for  the 
fact,  that  among  all  the  discrepancies  between  parallel  passages, 
those  only  which  had  letters  or  words  not  found  in  the  others  have 
been  indicated  by  Points. 

137.  Furthermore,  even  if  this  difficulty  were  answered,  we 
should  have  still  to  account  for  the  restricted  number  of  the 
Extraordinary  Points.  It  is  hardly  credible  that  the  Jews  while 
comparing  the  various  parallel  passages,  should  have  found  only 
those  ten  passages  worthy  of  attention.  In  Genesis  alone,  there 
are  numerous  passages  in  which  the  same  word  is  spelled  differ- 
ently. Why  have  not  the  Jews  called  attention  to  them  also  ? 
Again,  it  might  be  asked,  why  are  the  dots  placed  over,  v.  g,y 
the  inw  of  Num.  xxix,  15,  and  not  over  the  ]rwv  of  verse  10; 
over  rh)i^  of  Gen.  xviii,  9,  and  not  over  that  of  Gen.  xix,  21 ; 
over  ]"inj<1  of  Num.  iii,  39,  rather  than  over  the  same  word  in  iv,  34, 
and  so  on  ?     If  the  author  of  the  dots  had  in  view  only  to  safe- 

1  See  above,  §§18,  19. 


112  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

guard  the  unusual  presence  of  certain  letters  in  certain  words,  he 
should  have  also  pointed  the  other  passages  which  exhibit  the  same 
unusual  character,  and  where  apparently  there  was  the  same  danger 
of  making  a  mistake.  This  argument  would  retain  all  its  force, 
if  instead  of  making  the  Points  express  a  striking  feature  of  one 
passage  when  put  in  comparison  with  a  parallel  one,  we  would 
base  the  underscoring  of  words  and  letters  on  discrepancies  between 
MSS.  Konigsberger,  it  is  true,  argues  that  the  dotted  letters  give 
a  less  regular  reading  and,  consequently,  should  be  retained ;  but 
this  changes  the  question  concerning  the  meaning  of  the  Nequdoth, 
into  one  of  pure  Textual  Criticism.  For,  even  if  the  dotted  letters 
were  critically  correct,  it  would  not  follow  that  the  dots  were  not 
invented  to  answer  a  critical  preoccupation ;  the  author  of  the 
Points,  owing  to  the  unexpected  presence  of  these  letters  or  for 
some  other  reason,  might  still,  although  wrongly,  have  thus  marked 
them  doubtful  or  spurious. 

138.  We  have  seen  besides,  that  the  early  Jewish  tradition, 
as  embodied  in  Sifre,  far  from  emphasizing  the  genuineness  of  the 
dotted  letters,  implies  that  they  should  be  left  out.  Sifre,  as  it  is 
nearer  and  apparently  more  conformable  to  the  primitive  tradition 
than  the  Massorah  proper,  cannot  be  discarded.  Were  it  true 
that,  as  Konigsberger  seems  to  assume,  the  Massorah  never  con- 
demned any  textual  elements,  it  would  still  remain  to  be  proved 
that  in  pre-Massoretic  times  the  same  method  was  always  followed. 
Let  the  reader  remember  besides,  what  we  have  already  stated, 
viz.,  that  the  differences  existing  between  the  older  Jewish  works 
and  the  Massorah,  are  not  to  be  accounted  for  by  the  existence  of 
two  independent  and  parallel  traditions,  one  Midrashic,  the  other 
Massoretic,  and  both  having  a  different  scope ;  they  should  rather 
be  explained  by  the  different  stages  of  one  and  the  same  tra- 
dition, which  at  one  time  was  misunderstood  or  became  con- 
fused.^ We  may  add  that,  as  the  Massorah  does  not  hint  even 
once  at  the  supposed  striking  feature  to  which  the  Points  refer, 
Konigsberger' s  explanations,  concerning  the  reason  for  placing  the 
Points,  seem  to  be  a  mere  substitution  of  his  own  theoretical  con- 
ceptions for  those  of  the  Jewish  writings. 

^  See  above,  §  19.     ' 


Extraordinary  Pointa  of  the  Pmtateuch,  llS 

It  seems  to  us  therefore  to  be  beyond  all  doubt  that  the  theory 
of  Italics  does  not  correspond  to  the  primitive  meaning  of  the 
Nequdoth, 

D.      Ceitical  Theories. 

139.  Were  we  to  judge  of  the  respective  values  of  the  various 
critical  theories  simply  from  the  results  of  Textual  Criticism,  it 
would  seem  that  all  these  theories  sufficiently  harmonize  with  its 
data.  Since,  in  almost  all  cases,  we  have  detected  traces  of  recen- 
sions in  which  the  dotted  elements  were  not  found,  it  is  quite  natu- 
ral to  conclude  that  the  Nequdoth  either  call  attention  to  the 
existence  of  discrepancies  between  mss.,  or  that,  in  view  of  such 
divergencies,  doubts  having  arisen  as  to  the  genuineness  of  these 
words  and  letters,  the  Points  express  this  doubt ;  or  finally,  that, 
on  the  strength  of  the  other  recensions,  these  words  and  letters 
having  been  condemned  as  spurious,  the  Extraordinary  Points 
served  to  mark  graphically  such  a  condemnation,  which  last  import 
they  have  in  contemporary  Palaeography. 

Let  us,  however,  examine  those  theories  a  little  more  closely, 
for  we  think  that  it  is  yet  possible,  even  from  the  data  of  Textual 
Criticism  alone,  to  come  to  a  conclusion  less  vague  and  general. 

140.  As  we  said  above,  the  Points  are  used  only  when  recen- 
sions disagreed  as  to  the  presence  or  absence  of  some  words  or 
letters  and  not  for  other  discrepancies ;  if  these  Points  had 
expressed  discrepancies  as  such,  it  is  hardly  conceivable  that  they 
would  not  have  been  used  for  other  differences  besides  those  that 
they  actually  mark.  In  the  same  way,  if  they  had  been  used  to 
express  a  doubt,  we  could  hardly  account  for  the  fact  that  they 
express  only  those  doubts  that  arose  from  the  presence  of  certain 
textual  elements,  and  not  other  doubts  as  well.  Still  less  can  we 
account  for  this  state  of  affiiirs,  if,  with  Konig,  we  tone  down  the 
doubt  to  a  mere  interrogation  mark ;  for,  in  that  case,  there  must 
have  been  many  other  passages  against  which,  for  some  reason  or 
other,  such  suspicions  could  have  been  entertained. 

141.  Moreover,  while  comparing  the  various  recensions,  the 
author  of  the  Points  must  have  met  with  many  other  instances, 


114  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

besides  the  few  pointed,  in  which  his  own  copies  had  letters  or 
words  lacking  in  some  of  these  other  recensions.  If  then,  by 
appending  the  Points,  the  Jews  simply  intended  to  mark  discrep- 
ancies between  mss.,  or  to  express  their  own  subjective  doubts,  why 
have  only  those  passages  been  pointed  ?  We  have  seen,  for  instance, 
that  there  were  several  recensions  with  regard  to  the  plene  or 
defective  forms  of  ]*l^E^yi,  and  that  this  word  was  occasionally 
written  but  once  in  places  where  it  is  written  twice  in  our  Mas- 
soretic  text ;  why  have  they  pointed  only  one,  viz.,  Num.  xxix, 
15?  From  these  two  considerations,  based  on  the  small  number 
of  the  Nequdoth,  it  follows  that  those  theories  which  make  them 
express  a  vague  and  easily  detected  peculiarity  h^ve  the  less 
chance  of  giving  us  their  true  purpose.  Thus,  the  theory  main- 
taining that  the  Points  merely  mark  discrepancies  between  mss. 
and  recensions,  is  not  as  probable  as  the  one  which  adds  to  this 
the  idea  of  a  suspicion  entertained  against  the  genuineness  of  the 
Massoretic  readings ;  and  this  last  theory  is  again  less  probable 
than  the  one  which  would  extend  the  suspicion  into  a  positive 
doubt.  More  probable  than  any  of  the  preceding,  is  the  theory 
that  makes  the  Nequdoth  conventional  signs  for  cancelling  words 
and  letters  that  were  considered  spurious.  The  author  of  the 
Points  may  have  noticed  many  discrepancies  between  mss.,  may 
have  entertained  many  suspicions  or  even  positive  doubts  as  to 
the  genuineness  of  certain  letters  and  words,  and  yet,  he  would  not 
reject  these  words  or  letters,  unless  impelled  by  stronger  motives. 
Only  in  those  ten  passages,  were  the  grounds  considered  strong 
enough  to  allow  such  a  decisive  stand  to  be  taken  against  our 
present  Massoretic  readings.  Finally,  we  cannot  lay  too  much 
stress  on  the  fact  that  the  ancient  Kabbis  must  have  been  strongly 
convinced  of  the  cancelling  value  of  the  Points,  when  they 
departed  from  the  original  tradition  with  regard  to  their  place,  in 
order  to  place  them  on  letters  which,  as  has  been  shown,  they  could 
more  clearly  consider  as  spurious. 

142.  This  conclusion,  arrived  at  from  the  date  of  Textual 
Criticism,  is  fully  borne  out  by  the  explanations  of  Sifre.  In  view 
of  the  decisive  stand  it  takes  against  the  dotted  letters,  it  is  not 
probable  that  the  Nequdoth  simply  call  attention  to  the  existence 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  FentateucL  115 

of  discrepancies  between  Mss.,  although  we  may  grant  that  these 
divergencies  may  have  been  the  cause  of  the  rejection  of  the  pointed 
letters.  In  the  same  way,  the  claim  that  the  Points  simply  cor- 
respond to  a  mere  interrogation  mark  hardly  does  justice  to  the 
catchwords  of  Sifre.  Nor  would  it  avail  anything  in  favor  of  this 
last  view,  to  argue,  as  Konig  does,  from  the  disagreement  that 
seems  to  exist  among  the  Eabbis  with  regard  to  the  purpose  of  the 
Extraordinary  Points,  and  from  this  to  conclude  that  nothing 
definite  was  known  about  them.  In  many  cases,  these  supposed 
dissensions  are  only  apparent  and  are  due  to  the  fact  that  while 
the  idea  implied  was  the  same,  the  explanations  were  different, 
V,  g.,  Num.  ix,  10;  xxi,  30;  xxix,  15;  Deuteron.  xxix,  28.  In 
other  cases,  we  have  been  able  to  distinguish  the  older  tradition, 
where  no  such  hesitancy  is  found,  from  the  later  Midrashic  ampli- 
fications, and  although  the  meaning  of  the  Points  may  have  become 
confused  in  the  latter,  it  would  not  be  fair  to  reject  the  former  on 
that  account.  There  are,  it  is  true,  two  cases,  where  even  in  Sifre 
there  seems  to  have  existed  a  discrepancy  among  the  Rabbis,  viz., 
Gen.  xvi,  5  and  Gen.  xxxiii,  4 ;  but,  as  we  have  explained,  the 
controversy  does  not  refer  to  the  meaning  of  the  Points  but  to 
their  right  to  existence.  The  dots  are  not  the  outcome  of  discus- 
sions as  to  whether  or  not  a  word  was  genuine,  in  the  sense  that 
they  would  mark  the  impossibility  for  the  Rabbis  to  reach  an 
agreement ;  consequently,  they  do  not  call  attention  to  the  uncer- 
tainty of  the  word  as  such.  On  the  contrary,  the  presence  of  the 
Points  on  these  letters  was  the  occasion  and  cause  of  such  sporadic 
disagreements,  precisely  because,  being  agreed  on  their  import, 
most  Rabbis  wanted  to  retain  them  and  thus  condemn  the  dotted 
elements,  while  others  pronounced  the  dotted  letters  genuine  and 
consequently  wished  to  remove  the  Points. 

143,  The  preceding  considerations  also  disprove — at  least  to 
a  great  extent — the  theory  that  the  Points  express  only  a  real  and 
serious  doubt  with  regard  to  the  genuineness  of  the  dotted  letters. 
Apart  from  the  questionable  passage  of  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (1 
and  2)  and  Bemidbar  Rabba,  at  the  end  of  their  respective  lists,^ 

1  See  above,  §§  128  f. 


116  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  the 

very  little  could  be  adduced  in  favor  of  this  view  and  against  the 
theory  which  makes  the  Points  an  equivalent  of  our  dele.  The 
tone  of  Sifre  is  far  too  emphatic  to  allow  us  to  stop  short  of  a 
positive  condemnation.  It  never  speaks  hesitatingly,  but  clearly 
asserts  without  restriction  that  such  letters  should  be  removed.^ 
Again,  although  it  might  be  questioned  whether  Aboth  de  R. 
Nathan  (2)  had  a  clear  conception  of  the  meaning  of  the  Points, 
still  the  use — at  least  mechanical — of  the  technical  formula  '  ^ID''/ 
in  its  explanation,  is  an  indication  that  the  dotted  letters  should 
be  left  out ;  for,  this  formula  ^  b)D^/  very  much  like  the  scholastic 
^  dices '  or  '  videtur  quod  non/  is  used  only  to  introduce  a  clause  or 
an  interpretation  that  the  Eabbis  wished  to  reject.^  Hence,  if  the 
explanations  made  necessary  by  the  presence  of  the  dotted  letters, 
are  positively  rejected,  we  must  needs  conclude  that  these  dotted 
letters  themselves  are  condemned. 

There  is  only  one  theory  left,  viz.,  that  the  Nequdoth  were 
originally  and  primarily  intended  to  cancel.  The  only  question 
that  might  be  asked,  would  be  whether  we  should  make  an  excep- 
tion for  Gen.  xxxiii,  4,  where  a  transposition  is  probably  intended. 
But  as  we  have  shown,  even  if  the  transposition  be  granted,  it 
would  not  follow  that  the  Nequdoth  indicate  the  transposition  as 
such  ;  they  simply  cancel  the  word  in  the  place  it  occupies,  but  of 
themselves,  do  not  indicate  whether  or  where  it  should  be  re- 
inserted. Again,  the  claim  of  Blau  and  Ginsburg,^  that  occasion- 
ally the  Points  indicate  the  substitution  of  another  reading  for  the 
present  Massoretic  one,  is  not  justified,  at  least  with  regard  to  the 
official  Nequdoth,  The  fact  that  in  MSS.,  dots  are  sometimes  found 
over  letters  replaced  by  others  in  other  recensions,  cannot  be 
adduced  against  this  assertion ;  as  far  as  we  know,  in  such  pas- 
sages, the  variant  is  given  in  the  margin,  which  is  not  the  case 
when  the  letter  is  to  be  omitted.  It  is,  therefore,  evident  that  the 
Points  simply  cancel  these  letters  of  the  text,  and  whether  any- 


1  See  Blau,  MU,  p.  8. 

^  Bacher,  Jiidische  Schriftavslegung,  p.  72. 

3Cp.  above,  §9. 


Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch,  117 

thing  had  to  be  inserted  in  their  stead  should  be  judged  from 
different  sources. 

As  this  result,  derived  from  Textual  Criticism  and  the  Jewish 
Writings,  also  harmonizes  with  the  mental  attitude  of  the  Jews 
at  the  time  when  the  Nequdoth  originated,^  and  with  the  palseo- 
graphical  use  of  dots,^  we  may  give  as  our  final  conclusion  that 
tlie  Nequdoth  or  Extraordinary  Points  of  the  Pentateuch 
were  devised  by  their  author  or  authors,  to  condemn,  as 
spurious,  the  words  or  letters  over  which  they  were  placed. 


iCp.  above,  §§42-44. 
2Cp.  above,  §§45-55. 


APPENDIX 


The  Jewish  Testimonies  on  the  Nequdoth.^ 

Genesis  XVI,  5. 
144. 

1.— Sifre.2     ^y  k^k  )b  H^DX  i6m  "^rai  '•J''::  'H  tODU^^  ID  KiJVD 

Thus  Bemidbar  Rabba  iii,    13 ;  most  editions,  however,  read 
y:^2\     Thus   also   Leqach    Tob    (list),^   ^'^^^2)  'TD   'H   'Dti;''" 

"  K^tr^  nipj  no^. 

2. — Aboth  de  E.  Nathan  (1st.  Recension)^  ^'TDI  '•^''D  'H  13'lDtr;'' 
3. — Aboth   de   R.    Nathan   (2d.  Recension)^    ij^'D    'r\  ^)BW^ 

:i:r\  ii:iD  x^x  )b  hidk  n^iz;  n^^y  Tp:n  T'''^"*'^'^ 

4. — Midrash  Mishle.^ 

y2^2}v  I'v  y:^2)  '•rn  'n  ^)Bw^  «nnnD  nnipj  nw  i^^'^n  jon 
^y  nj^tt^N'n  no  frh)p:i  yoiz/  nnu^  ^^x  noxn  nu;x  ^d  nox:u^  rT"^^"^ 

5.— Soferim,  vi,  3.''     lip:   "j^^DDU;    HI''  Y^iD"*   '•^D    "»'•   \D)BW 

*  In  the  following  notes,  we  have  noticed  only  the  variants  which  are  of  some 
importance,  either  with  regard  to  the  place  of  the  Points  or  with  regard  to  their 
explanations.     On  these  Jewish  testimonies  see  above  §§  63  f. 

2  §  69.     Ed.  Friedmann,  p.  18a. 

3  On  Num.  ix,  10.     Ed.  Padua,  p.  194. 

*  Ch.  XXXIV.     Ed.  Schechter,  p.  100. 
*Ch.  XXXVII.     Ed.  Schechter,  p.  97. 
«0n  Prov.  xxvi,  24.     Ed.  Buber,  p.  99. 
'  Ed.  Miiller,  p.  xii. 

119 


120  Appendix, 

6. — Diqduqe  ha-Teamim.^     y^]J   '•DDH^  yy^^). 
7.^-Massorah  Magna,  on  Num.  iii,  39.  ^     nu^    not^m    '^''mi 

♦'T'^y  '•Don  Di-nD«  ^k 

Genms  XVIII,  9. 
145. 

1.— Sifre.    n^v'^v  vn^v  Y^m^  nnu;  .tn  v^n  nnx^'i  d  KJiVD 

2. — Baba  Metsfa  87a  (middle),  reproduced  in  Midr.  ha- 
Gadol,    ed.    Schechter,    col.    273.     "lip:   no^  '•DT'  ^21  UWO  ^:T) 

3. — Bereshith  Rabba  xlviii,  15  (17),  reproduced  in  Leqach 
Tob  {ad  locum),  p.  84 ;  Yalqut,  §  82,  and  partly  in  Mid.  ha- 
Gadol,  col.  273. 

^nn  nnt<  n-iip:n  ^y  nnn  2nD  xijio  nn^^ti^  »'dd  n'diz;-!  idk  ^iip: 
mip^nii;  ji^D  -mipjn  nt<  i:;nn  nnx  nn^n  bv  hdi  mipj  onjn  nx 
nwD  7nnty  n'N  ^♦DH'iDh?  vx  «nmp:in  nt^  ii^nn  nni<  rin^n  ^j;  nnn 

4. — Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (1st.  Recension).     noN''1   ^  [D  N2iVD] 

inpDDi  n2  ]^v^v^  ["iD^D  v^t^Dit;]  Vit^  bv  i^p:i  «nnw  .tx  r^x 

5. — Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (2d.  Recension).    ^ID''  ^Htt^K  nntl^  n''''^ 

(inrrj)  r^Dn^  ^b^  m  a^v'^v  vn^v  vbv  ^y^r\  m  w^v^v  vn  ^b)i; 

^  At  the  end  of  the  Venice  Bible,  1517  f. ,  app.   O,  fol.  O  recto. 
2  Ed.  Baer  and  Strack,  p.  46.    "jinnXn  n^  b:?  "Ilp^  "j^r21.     Codex  Baer  repro- 
duces Midrash  Mishle  with  some  variations. 
3M.  M.  on  Gen.  xvi,  5,  nn2  '^  bl?  "lip^  "-pr^l.    Marginal  note  '^  hv  "lip:  OT 

*In  the  Vat.  MS.  (119),  l^bx  bv  "llp^,  see  Kabbinowicz,  Diqduqe  Soferim, 
Part  xiii,  p.  260,  n.  1.     Midr.  ha-Gadol,  rVx   bl?  "iipl 

*>  Leqach  Tob  omits  nip:  .  .  .  i]''bi< ;  Yalqut  '01   IJ^N  l)2b  nip:  rN. 

« Leqach  Tob  omits  DniDX  VN  .  ..  T\2l    mipl 

■f  Leqach  Tob  V^^^'N'^  TTODSn.  The  quotation  of  Midr.  ha-Gadol  begins  only 
with  CrD. 

^  Leqach  Tob,  Yalqut,  and  Midr.  ha-Gadol,  add  CmDN?. 

®In  the  documents,  the  words  between  brackets  have  been  inserted  by  the 
editors,  those  between  parenthesis  are  readings  considered  incorrect. 


Appendix,  121 

)biD2^  ^bw  b^2m2  n-^wn  ^D^b'o  vr\w  i^dk  dh-idk  b)v  [inyiol 

^ :  nii^D  nx 

6. — Bemidbar   Eabba,    L    c,    nnii'    .TN   Ti^X    not<''1    nnilDII 

7. — Leqach  Tob  (list),  I  c,  j^ynv  mpj  no^  -^ntr^K  nniy  n"'K 

8.— Sekhel  Tob  ;  ed.  Buber,  p.  26.     U^'IX  •  "l"''^<  ^y  mpj  -V^X 

nx  t:;nn  nnx]  mipjn  bv  nnn  nnD  xiiia  nnxiz;  Dipo  ^d  iTr^x  )d 
V'l'x  nip:i  1XD1  -n-npjn  ^nn  nnx  [nnDn  ^y  n^n  mip:  dhdh 
□m  ^vnnx  xim  nax^tL^  r1i<^»n  nnx  loiy  '^-l  mivo  nnx^  dhidx  ""d 
iTx  1*?  nDXi  mm  Q-nnx  i^x  n^ix  i^^x  ^'om  mvj  bv)  "^^bv  iW 
*nmpjn  nx  tiym^  r-ix  ^y  -npj  y:)^Bb  "|n^x  niiz; 

9.— Soferim,  ^.  c,  "npj  ^  (n'tx)  rx  l^TWJi^  m^V  .TX  Ti^N  noX""! 
10. — Diqduqe  ha-Teamim,  L  c,  mx  V^X  nDX""!  ^V^X 
11. — Massorah  Magna,  l.  c,  "jDirX  mil'  iTX  ^1'''7X 


Genesis  XIX,  33. 
146. 

1.— Sifre,    L    c,     ^y    mpj    HDipDI    HDDIi^D    yi''    X^l    ID    K!{1''D 

2. — Nazir  23a,   reproduced  in   Horayoth   10b;  Arukh,  s.  v., 
I'T;  Midr.  ha-Gadol,  col.  297. 

n"i''D3  b^  6-i»ip3i  ^'^^  bv  mp:  na^  -"jin  Dn  nD  '•dv't  diii;d  x^n 

mm  '•xa  inj;''»^  m^  mn  '•xdi  j;m  noipD  ^nx  v^^  ^b  nDDii^nii;  noi^ 

t'ui  xnon  Tui^'ia^  ^j;n''x  x^  xrnnx  x''>d^-i  nro  xpDJ  mn 

3.— Bereshith  Kabba,  li,  8  (10),  mpj  'U1  l^""  jmDX  DX  l-ipi^m 

•y"T'  niDipn  j;"!''  x^  nDDir^Dii;  noipni  ^i:^  i  xi  ^j; 

1  Schechter  suggests  the  following  correction  :  nDiDH  m!**?:?:  iniN  ^V^T  N^tZ? 

2  On  this  variant,  see  Miiller,  Soferim^  p.  87. 

^  Codex  Baer  and  Cod.  of  St.  Petersburg  have  r'PN  ;  see  Baer  and  Strack,  o.  c. 
p.  46. 

*M.  T.  rbk. 

^Yalqut,  V'^lbi?  "Tip. 

« Horayoth,  n?2")pDtL'  V'^1 ;  Midr.  ha-Gadol,  DTDipD^ViT;  V"l. 


122  Appendix. 

4. — Aboth  de  E.  Nathan  (1st.  Eecension),  /.  c,  b^b)  )2  t^liVD] 

*m^V^  bvj  nm^o^D  k^x  ii;^nn 

5. — Aboth  deR.  Nathan  (2d.  Eecension),  I.  c,  n'D'D'tr;':}  ^T  b^b^ 

vbv  "iv:in  ^^nn  t<^  noipn  ^dn  :i;'')nn  nDDir;^  ^-n'o'Tp'D'i 
♦yT  naipm  HDDu^D  nn^yiim  -tr^-inn  noipni  iL^'inn  x^  nsDti^s^ 

6. — Bemidbar   Eabba,    /.  c,    noipDI   nDDIfS  j;"T'  t<^1  nmiDII 

b^i^  VT  i<^  n^D^::  nion  b)v  noipDi  ^ii^  j;iioi<2ir;  Tt^i  bv  "iiJp 

7. — Midrash    Mishle,    I    c,     no  '•JDO  ^HDlpDI  HDDtL'D  y'T'  X^l 

8. — Mid.  Yelamdenu,  quoted  in  Arukh,  s.  v.,  )')  and  Yalqut, 
§86. 

HMU^  HD^  iipj  ^-iDipni  HDipDi  nDDii;3  ^T  x^i  3^nD  HD  nxn 

9. — Leqach  Tob  (list),  /.   c,  y'T'  X^  n:iDm:i1!;  n»^  ♦KD'ipDI 
10. — Leqach  Tob   (ad  locum),  p.    90,    •  n»1pD1   HDD^D  j;"l'>  x':)! 

»Tn  K^i  ,^^nn^  yT  noipD  ^nx  yT  t6  mDvj^m  -iid^^  v^y  -npj 

11.— Sekhel  Tob,  p.  40.    inU'Dir^D  ♦  .TDX  nx  ^DIVD)  HTDDH  X3m 

nto^ti;  "jD  bD  rv^w  n^^^'OD  [n^ynrl  ^in^  nmnj;  nx^iiini  imny^ 
:nDip3i  ^v  "iip:  "jD^  vnnriD  noipn  yTi  xi^"'!  yiin  ty'innti;  ij;  noijy^ 

12.— Zohar.^   Vh)2  noipD^i  n3Dir^3  yT  i6)  ^TlD  Xn''D"ipD  '•m  XD 
Y'o)i  x"iDij;  x^nn3  nontL^x  nin  t^b^v'^  xy^^D"!  i'')3  Txi  ^v  -iipji 

^MSS.  of  Epstein  and  of  Oxford,  D^SipDI  i?ir?2N2^  VNI  bj? ;  see  Schechter,  100, 
n.  22. 

2  ms.  of  Halberstamm,  "l^l  r^2^^2Z  l^^b  r^^^J):!  bl'  "ipj  ;  see  Schechter,  p.  97, 
n.  19. 

^  Yalqut  omits  one  Hl^lpDV 

*  Yalqut  omits  ^p^tb  to  the  end  of  the  quotation. 

^  Quoted  in  Minchath  Shai,  ad  locum. 


Appendix,  123 

13. — Soferim,  L  c,  .lipj  HDipDIL^  1X1  HOipDI  HDDtt^D  ^T  N^l 
14. — Diqduqe  ha-Teamim,  /.  c,  J.^DK  DN  ppU^m  ^♦HOipDI 
15. — Massorah  Magna,  /.  c,  h?XDnp  DiTiDt^  nx  j'lpU^n'l    ^10^pD^ 


Genesis  XXXIII,  4. 
147. 

1.— Sifre,    L   c,    ]D   tL^'l   D^  b^2  ^pVJ}  i^hw  )r\p^^)  ID  KJJVD 

nmt<D  VDnn  iddhj  n^pk  npv^h  ^:w  wvw  ^itd  ^-lDS-l  noix  ""nv 

2. — Bereshith  Rabba,  Ixxviii,  9  (12),  reproduced  in  Shir  ha- 
Shirim  Rabba,  vii,  8  ;  Yalqut,  §  133  ;  Sekhel  Tob,  p.  178. 

nD^w  n'D2  niy^N  p  iij;oti^  n'N  vbv  "iipJ  inp^*"!  inxnp^  wv  p"*! 
n^n  mipjn  oddh  nx  ii;in  nnx  mipjn  ^j;  n2i  dddh  nj^id 
rnipjn  ^y  hdi  dhd  t^^  )t<D   ♦n"iip:n  n^  u;nn  nn^  'nriDn  ^y 

ND  N^u^  "iD^D  j^^N  *vbv  n^p^  HD^  p  DN  '•xr  'n  yt<  ♦id'?  ^dd  )pw:i) 
:'ni  ti^''^  'pii;  i:''Di<  Dpr  ^^  nxiji  niiryji  idu;:^  i<bt^  )p]i;:b 

3. — Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (1st.  Recension),  l.c .,  I^j;  p''1  n  NJiVD 

n'pu;  "lo^D  nip:  i'pd  )n''pw)  mxii?  ^y  ^iD''i  inp^n'"!  in«np^ 
]ri<  I'piDi  n»K  'pii:;  it  np^ir^j  noit^  1Ty^^<  ]d  ]ivo^  ''DI  •  naxD  ipu^j 

4. — Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (2d.  Recension),  /.  c,  nK1!i  ^V  ^ID''! 

p  pj;ott^  '•Dn  -HDnt^  ^i:^  np'^iyj  nmi^  '?id''  mp:  Vn'p'u;"»"i 
no  ^in  vn  nxju;  ^^  n'pnriD  wv  bvj  rwo  ^d  i<^m  noix  niy^K 


1  Ed.  Baer  HI^DD  bt^  n:2lp2  Vi*  VO  ^:?  "lipi,  with  the  explanations  of  Sifre  in 
Cod.  Baer. 

2M.  T.  nT^-ipDi.    M.  P.  ^'t  bi?  -npi 

'Yalqut,  Nbm. 

*  Sekhel  Tob  adds,  ])D"ip?22'i  nixip:  x^N  ni2n2:  ]rN::?  n*.2M  ]nix  ',^d  xin::? 

:  nD^n^n  n'!\n^N  i::  c*:;  niiip^i  pbn 

*Shir  ha-Shirim  omits  1^hl2 "n?^^^:?. 

«  Yalqut  and  Sekhel  Tob  read  Ob  ^D  ipt:;:  xb^  ;  see  other  variants  in  Sekhel 
Tob  and  Yalqut,  II.  cc. 


124  Appendix. 

5. — Bemidbar  Rabba,  /.  c,  ^b'W  bv  T'^V  llpJ  )r\pw^)  nmiDII 

D'nb  bD2  )p]i;2 

6.— Midrash    Mishle,   I.   c,  n^pj  )D2^)   )r\pw^)  m^lii  bv  ^1D''T 

nN*Jii^  ^11^  ^?^^  fr\2r\^  b^v  wnj2  np^ti;:^  nw  io^d  inpii^^i  ^y 

7. — Midr.  Tanchuma/  reproduced  in  Midrash  ha-Gadolj  col.  516. 

^^iv  biv  nx^ii  nwji  )D'[v:h  wv  ti^p^  )np2r]^)  mxnp^  iti^y  p''i 
:'ui  iDn^i  'nox'^ii:;  'p^^j  nmn  ^b^  Ynp^V^)  nipj  "id'? 

8. — Leqach  Tob  (list),  I.  c,  ''nn  OD^  ^DD  ipi:;:  ^b'iV  in'pii;^! 

:-np:  -|D^  d^  te  ipii^:  nyti;  nnixD  "idix  -"xni^  )::  ])vriXi; 

9. — Leqach  Tob  (ad  locum),  p.  171.     inprSH'''!  inxnp^  WV  p''1 

nil  iDii?:^ 

10. — Zohar,  in  Buxtorf,  Tiberias,  p.  176,  ^^y^  ,T^y  "lip:  inpli;''1 

11.— Soferim,  I  c,    "lip:  m  )npvj^)  nxiJi  ^j;  ^ID^I 
■  12.— Diqduqe   ha-Teamim,    /.    c,     'inxnp^  WV  p""!   Onpii;''1 
13. — Massorah    Magna,    I.    c,     :int<np^    WV    p^'l    ^Onptl^^l 

G67?em  XXXVII,  12. 
148. 

1. — Sifre,   I   c,     ^nr\^2^  ]5^1i    T)^    mV"1^    ^^ni<    ID^^l   ID   ^liVD 

tDDijy  nx  mn^  ^<^x  )Dbr\  ^bw  'vbv  "np:3 

2. — Bereshith  Rabba,  Ixxxiv,  13  (12);  also  found  with  few 
differences  in  Leqach  Tob  (list),  I.  c.  :  Leqach  Tob  (ad  locum),  p. 
188 ;    Sekhel  Tob,   p.   217 ;    Yalqut,    §  141  ;    Midr.    ha-Gadol, 

col.  561.   )Dbn  tiib^d;  noi^  nx  bv  "i^pJ  ^'^^^  nx  n^v^b  vhk  id^^i 

lEd.  Frankf.  a.  O.,  fol.  12c. 

'^  Ed.    Baer    (the    words   between    brackets    are  found    only    in    Cod.    Baer) 


*  Yalqut  omits  Drr^X. 
°  Yalqut  has  nX  br. 


6  Leqach  Tob,  ad  locum,  adds,  Ch^DX  ^S'^i  b  iDNbl ;  Midr.  ha-Gadol  and  Cod. 
Baer  of  Diqduqe  ha-Te'amim  add,  rt^\n*;u'21  "VdND  ;  Sekhel  Tob  adds,  C^^I^D 


Appendix.  126 

3. — Aboth  de  E,.  Nathan  (1st.  Recension),  /.  c,  also  found  in 
Bemidbar  Rabba.     DiT^X    )XiJ   D'N    myi^   Vnt^   ^2h^^   )2   tOiVD 

^iDX^  b^b^  )Dbr\  )t<!in  n)v^b  t6^  n»^o  'n'K  ^y  -np:  n2w2 

4. — Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (2d.  Recension),  l.  c,  ]^?l^  'n'K  niN"!^ 

nniK 

5. — Midr.  Mishle,  I.  c. 

^b^  ii2bi2  *vbv  mpJ  nx-  DDMD.T2X  it<ii  nh?  mi<n^  t-hn  )Db^) 
nv^:i  u^  HD  rp  nnDi  nm  Smniz;^i  ^Dxb  x^k  fr\)vh  oSi 

tHDDi  HDD  nnN  ^y 

6. — Soferim,  /.  c,     "npj  nj<  r)^^  HN  niy"l^  I'lnx  1D^''T » 

7. — Diqduqe  ha-Te  amim, /.  c,  ^m^^  [TiH^]  (l''^«)  1Db''V  n«« 

8. — Massorah  Magna,  /.  c,    myi^  Tint^  )Db^)  ♦^nx* 

iVm/i.   Ill,  39. 
149. 

1.— Sifre,  /.  c,  Jin^^l  nWQ  "ipD  nU^X  D''1^n  nipD  bD  )2  NJiVD 

tj'iiDn  i»  pn^  .Tn  x^ir;  ^^''^y  mp: 

2.— Bekhoroth  4a.,  K'ljrn  Vp©''^  t<^  ^^^  ^rilfc^D  .TH  i<^ir;  ]nnK1 

:  ♦  •  ♦  ]'•'':»  inixn  ^^-l  n^ii;  onipDn  ^vonniv  )nnj<  ^y  mp:  no^ 

3. — Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (1st.  Recension),  l.  c,  also  in  Midr. 

Mishle,  l.  c,  bv  "np3  )"1^^<^  nii^D  ipD  nu^x  D''i^n  mpD  bD  id  xiii''D 

4.— Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (2d.  Recension),  L  c,  D^'l^n  mpE  ^ 

:nnnii;3  'dd^  pn^^  n^nw  b^y  i'n'n'«"i  ni:;tD  npD  nir^N 
1ms.  of  Oxford  has  ]"^:y  br  nip^  n):b. 

=^  Schechter  suggests  the  correction,  "]"1  """l^  a^N^2?2. 

^  What  follows  is  reproduced  in  Cod.  Baer  of  Diqduqe  ha-Te  amim  ;  see  Baer 
and  Strack,  o.  c,  p.  46. 

*  Codex  Baer  like  Midr.  ha-Gadol,  see  above. 

^M.  T.  as- 

*^  Yalqut,  ed.  Warsaw,  has  pHX  bV. 

Un  Schechter' s  MS.,  it  is  ]^nN'  bz'  VXT  ^r  "i.p:  n)2b  ;  see  Bemidbar  Rabba, 

**  Schechter  suggests  to  add  "iCH;^-. 


126  Appendix. 

5. — Bemidbar  Eabba,  /.  c,  jnnxi  nil^O  "IpD  nii;«  D^'hn  mpD  ^D 
6. — Leqach  Tob  (list),  L  c,  HM  «^u;  ♦l^'ilNI  HTI^O  ipD  niy« 
7. — Leqach  Tob  (ad  locum),  ed.   Padua,  p.   168.      mpD  ^D 

nu;nDn  n^nn  nDiniz;  ""D^  -np:  ]'nnx  •  ]-inxT  nit'D  -ipc  nu^N  □'•^^-i 

8. — Soferim,  I.  c,   (jnnx)  )nn«")  ni^D  IpD  nii^N  D^I^H  mpD  bD 

:  "np: 

9. — Diqduqe  ha-Te'amim,  I.  c,  mpD  ^D  ^♦)*int<V 
10. — Massorah  Magna,  I.  c,  □''iSl  ''llpD  bD  ^♦)"inXV 


iV^i^m.   IX,  10. 
150. 

1.— Sifre, /.  c,  JM2  "'D^^  *i«'nn  bv  nip:  npinn  "iiid  ix 
:nDDn  dk  nn»y  nii;i:;  ^^"l  x^  xdl)  Nim  n^np 

2. — Mish.  Pesachim,  ix,  2,  □'•ymoH  ]D  HplHI  "]n"l  NM  11  ""K 

DDipoi^o  1D1N  nij;''^^^  'n  ND^ipy  ^Dn  nD-;  nn  ^d^  nmoDi  ^in^i 
pinnu;  '':dd  t6 101'?  'n  ^y  -np:  ^D^Bb  ^dv  'n  .t^  idx  ^in^i  n-iTyn 

3.-— Jer.  Pesachim,  ix,  2,  bv   HD"!   DnDHIi;   r\VVJ2   D^DK   ):n"n 

^y  HD-i  n"np:n^  nvw2)  n-np:n  nx  p^ooi  dhdh  ni<  *ii;nn  nx  n-np:n 

yi^w  ^B  bv  n^  '2"^  ^1^^  *  -^^'"»  riK  p^DDi  m)p2n  nx  i::^nn  riN  dddh 

DDDH  nx  p^DDi  n"np:n  n^s  u^nn  ns*  i^;;xd^o  nni<  mip:  x^x  du; 

:npini  ^m  )''i<i  pinn  ii:'\s  "np:  npinn^^  N'n 

4. — Tosefta  Pesachim,  viii,  3,  ^I2)b  ^'^  bv  lip:  'p^Bb  ^DV  'n  n^X 

:^in^i  nniy  ncipoND  k^k  '•N-n  npinniz;  '•:©»  5<^ 

1  The  editions  of  Venice  i545,  and  Wilna  1887,  have  "IHN  ;  that  of  Wilna  1896, 
which  we  follow  in  the  text,  has  ]"inN  ;  finally,  other  editions,  like  Amsterdam, 
1641  and  1725  have  simply  'N,  in  an  abbreviated  form.  Evidently,  this  abbrevia- 
tion is  responsible  for  the  two  readings  IHN  and  ]"irtN,  for  it  can  stand  for  both, 
and  was  reconstructed  in  both  ways. 

2  Ed.  Baer  has,  iinxi  b:;?  ".ip:  prixi  n^^ 

3M.  T.  pnxi. 

*  At  the  end  of  the  list,  it  has  rbp  Hlpl 


Appendix.  127 

5. — Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (1st.  Recension),  L  c,  ^N  )2  fc<2{VD 

npnn  ^m  nm-i  k^iz;  id^q  npinnnti^  ^'n  bv  iipJ  np'inn  -|-i-i2 

6. — ^Aboth   de   R.    Nathan   (2d.    Recension),   L   c,   'yn^   IN 

:n3np  n^n  nrxtr^  i^'^y  Tp:n  '•nit  npinn  rvn^i;  n'p'Vn'i 

7. — Bemidbar  Rabba,  l.  c,  mp:  DD^   npini  "J-IID  IN  nniDT) 

riDipoN  p  N^N  npinn  ^-n  mn  tabxi;  lo^o  npinn  ^u^  n^-n  bv 
nir^iy  »Tn  n^  no^o  Nim  n^np  ^m^  ""Dnit;  «"•!   ^y^rh)  nniyn 

:nDDn  nx  anoy 

8. — Midrash  Mishle,   I.  c,  nriM  X^li;  "10^0  ♦Hpinn  yr\2  IN 

:^in^i  nniyn  nDipoNo  n^n  Cnpinn  ^11] 

■      9.— Leqach  Tob  (list),  /.  c,  HDnp  ']^12  1^"'DN  'n  '^y  lipj  -npin-^ 

:n*nnD  nmp:  (T:dd)  inN  rv) 

10. — Zohar,  in  Buxtorf,   Tiberias^  p.  180,  NT  Hpini  ^niD  IN 

:  n^D  nxTHN^  )''''nN  in^Di  NnmNn  ampj  )irN"i  nitt^vo  "in  in'»N 

11. — Soferim,  I.  c,  "IlpJ    'n  npm  "|mD  IN- 

1 2.— Diqduqe  ha-Te  amim,  ^.  c,  ^-|p^n   ")T1D  IN  *  npni  • 

13. — Massorah  Magna,  /.  c,  'npni  "TlID  IN  ♦Hpnn* 


iVwm.  XXI,  30. 

151. 

1.— Sifre,  /.  c,  ^lip:  NDTO  Hy  'niT^N  ^HDi:  1^  D''^J'l  Dn2  N!iVD 

2.—- Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (1st.  Recension),  L  c,  D''U;:i  D  NliTiD 

tm^non  iDnnn  n^i  didinh  iDnnnu; 

^MS.  of  Oxford,  'n  b:?  mp:  ;  see  Schechter,  p.  101,  n.  26. 
•^Ed.  Baer,  like  Aboth  de  E.  Nathan  (1). 

3M.  T.  .ipm. 

*  Yalqut,  edit,  of  Fr.  a.  M.  (1687)  and  Zolkiew  (1858),  has  nrO  Ti\ 
^  Yalqut,  ed.  of  Fr.  a.  M.  and  Zolkiew,  omits  NDT*»  IV  I^K  ;  ed.  of  Warsaw 
omits  XDT?D  IV. 

«  Thus  Yalqut ;  ed.  of  Warsaw  has  y^H  bv  llpl 

^MS.  of  Oxford  1V2^  n  bv  lip  J  ;  Schechter,  p.  101,  n.  27. 


128  Appendix. 

3. — Aboth  de  R.   Nathan  (2d.  Recension),  l.  c,  "ly  D"''!!^':'! 

*4. — Bemidbar  Rabba,  l.  c,  ^y  nipj  nir^N  HDJ  "ly  D^^:)"1  nnilDIl 

5. — Midr.  Mishle,  I.  c,  vbv  "1^^  *[^<:3"1^0  ^V  ^^^1  HDIJ  "iV  □'•tiOl 

6. — Midrash  ha-Gadol  (ms.)  quoted  in  Schechter,  Aboth  de  R. 
Nathan   (1st.   Recension),  p.    101,   n.   27,  Iq^d  •  •  •  [lip:  hd'?] 

7. — Leqach  Tob  (list),  l.  c,  :n%"l  ]^n^lO  ^i^W  -N^I^D  "1^  ["I'^Kl 
8. — Soferim,  L  c,  "np:  'n  Ij;  nil^N  HDJ  "ly  U^w:)  ♦ 
9. — Diqduqe  ha-Te  amim,  L  c,  ^12^  DTJ1  OU^b?  ♦ 
10. — Massorah  Magna,  /.  c,  ])2]Un  "IDi^  DT^I  O^X» 


Num.  XXIX,   15. 
152. 

1. — Sifre,  I.  c,  [^y]  ^])^mv  hv  lip:  inii'j;   ^)nt:^v  n  t^^n^n 

nnb^  nnK  ]nir;v  6v)  ^h^  ^^-^  n^ii; 

2. — Menachoth  87b,  reproduced  in  Arukh.  s.  v.,  IpJ;  Yalqut, 

§  782.  ]n^y  bw  ])^wv  v^^^:^^   y^^   "iip:j  no^  ^dv  'n  -ion 
N^T  nc^  'i  bm::i  ^b  "inD^  n^ii;  in  b^  ji^^nn  :dvj  ct'  'p^  i^^k"i 

:u;m  n^  nipj  D'ni  ^^n*^  d^^ii;  ^iz;d 

3. — Aboth    de    R.    Nathan  (1st.   Recension),    I.  c,   [ID  K^VD] 
4. — Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (2d.  Recension),  I.e.,  )  )''^']V'V  ]^^WV'^ 

ir^ii;  vbv  "i^p:in  ii^ddi  ^dd  bv  □"'^nii^y  ^:^  i^:;^  xin^  b)D^ 

:]V2D  bD  bv  "inx  n^n  )iy*iD 

1ms.  of  Halberstamm,  in  Schecliter,  p.  97,  n.   24.     "ir  I^^-Ih  N^vI;  rb:?  "Ipr." 

2  Ed.  Baer,  "ilp:!  tZ;^'^"!,  IL'N.  '       ' 

3  Yalqut,  ed.  Warsaw,  "{"nS/^l. 

*  Yalqut,  ed.  Frankf.  a.  M.,  omits  ]1"!'2/i?  7i?  "Tip^  ;  edit.  Warsaw  reads  Vl?  "llp^ 

»In  Schechter's  MS.,  we  have  ....  I^b?:  HD^  V^  *J''^  V^  inN  ]n'i:;>^  bl?  lip:)  ; 
see  Bemidbar  Ra-bba. 


Apjjendix,  129 

5. — Bemidbar  Eabba,  /.  c,  llpj    ♦n^yn  ])1WV  int^V  nnilDII 

6. — Midrash  Mishle,  Z.  c,  [)lti;Nnn]  (^ju^n)  ]n^y  'in^y  ])^^VV^ 
:  "iHK  ]nti^y  t^^x  ,n"i:)nw  ^w  ])v^  rvn  i6^  -id^d  vhv  nip: 

7. — Leqacb  Tob  (list),  I  c,   K^X  «Tn  K^ir;  HD^D  ♦J'nw  pityy 

8.— Soferim,  ?.  c,  Mvi)  ptt^N^i  D'VD  :nDtr^  jnw  ]ntyy 

9, — Diqduqe  ha-Te'amim,  L  c,  iPl"!  ]TllI^yV^ 

10. — Massorali  Magoa,  L  c,  :K:m  tI^3D^  lITl^y    ♦p^l^yv* 


Deuteron,  XXIX,  28. 
153. 

1.— Sifre/?.  c,  i:^jD^i  ij^  ni^^jHi  1i^n^«  'n^  nnnoin  12  b^^VD 

:nnnDjn 

2. — Sanhedrin  43b,  reproduced  in  Arukh  s.  v,  1p3,  with  slight 
variations,    bv  ^^iV  ^b^  "10^0  ^V^^V^  Y^V  b^l  i:)''3D^1  ):b  bv  "llp^  ^^^ 

rvnn:'^  ^k  n-n»T  inn  nm  l-n^^  ni<  ^^^nti^'' nnyir;  ly  nnnoj.-i 
i6x^  nw:)  n'px  D^iy  -ly  loxj  "n^D  x^m  c^iy^  nnriDjn  bv  ti^jy  ""di 
nx  ^xn^"*  )^2v^  ny  '•i^iDu^  ]^it^jiy  ^y  ^:v  i^b  ^d  nnnojn  ^y  w:v 

3. — Aboth  de  R.  Nathan  (1st.  Recension),  L  c,  reproduced  in 
Arukh,  s.  v,  IpJ,  with  minor  variations,      'n^  nnnDJn  12  t<iJ1'»D 

no^  iy2^  'y  ^yi  ly-jD^i  )':hbv  "iip:  iy''32^i  i':)^  m^jjm  im^x 
n»ix  ^D  nnnD  no  '•jdo  '•^  n»x^i  i.t^x  xn*"  nx  xnty  "lox  id  k^x 
:  p'^bv^  n-npj  niDyx  nnnD  nB^  ^b  noix  nxi  jn^'^y  -rnp:  idd  i^  '•:« 

iThus,  edit,  of  Venice,  1545;  Amsterdam,  1641,  1725;  Frankf.  a.  O.,  1643; 
Wilna,  1896.     The  editions  of  Lamberg,  1862  and  Wilna,  1887,  read :  Vi?  mpj 

*.?D-b?0  :n  bV2  ]1t2;N-l  ^^2;  p27Nn  piS?:^.     See  above,  §  117. 

2  Thus  Cod.  of  Paris  and  edit.  ;  Codex  Halberstamm  omits  V^l. 

3  Ed.  Baer,  ^m  piW  lilt:?!?') 

*M.  T.  fn^v)* 

5  Yalqut  omits  obl]?. 
«Yalqutaddsrb2?. 


130  Appendix. 

4. — Abotli  de  R.  Nathan  (2d.  Recension),  L  c,   'rh  ninD3n 

ny  i^W  "Ti^:^  i:^N  ^hrr\  uh^v  ^v  iJ''J3^i  "^^h  n  vyryn'i  ^J^-l^« 

iD^  K^x  .TH  n^o  )D  N^m  ^^-l  nt:;:^  ]d  '•di  hii^jd  in  Di^ni 
jiyDtr^  '•nn  noK   «nu^:o  idd  n^nj  "jd-id^  nit^:o  b^  vii^yoD  nTrjrit; 

[HD^]  ntDt^''!  i^T^K  KID''  nt^  ^^)v  iot<  "jD  x^N  i^S"i  n^iTiixn  ^d  ^y 
nriDDD  HD"'  E''^]  (1^)  "iDN''  nxT  d.t'pj;  ^r\y:^  n^D  i^  '•jx  ^dix  nnnriD 

tlfT^yiD  jiTmiip:  p^dd  '•rnn  nnix 

5. — Bemidbar  Rabba,  /.  c. 

ntDX''!  i.T^x  XD''  Dx  ir\^v  n»N  -|d  x^k  nip:  r\'oh  n'^'i  ♦nnno^n 
nnriD  hd''  ^b  lox''  dxi  d.t^^  ^mpj  "idd  i^  noix  in*,x  nnriD  hd^ 

6. — Midrash  Mishle,   /.  c,   reproduced  in  Arukh,  s.  v.,   "ipl 

"iD^o  [irj3^i  ij^  bv  "i^pJl  ^3^Jn^i  *ij^  m^i^m  ^:^'^^K  'n^  nnno^n 

I'lX  "'i^inu;  HD  ^y  FIX  n'npn  nn^  ^dx  ,nnDntt;  hd  ^y  j^iiiiD  ]^xi 

niDy^  □'•^iD''  nnx 

7.— Leqach  Tob  (list),  L  c,  nip:)  rycb  oy'jn^i  ij^  m^:ijni 
♦  nnnojn  ud7  ymx  '•jx  ^ix  ''i'?:n  nxr^^v  dxdh^  nox 

8. — Leqach  Tob  {ad  locum),  ed.  Padua,  p.  101.     nox  li^mnn 

'n^  nnnojn  ♦vio^^  '^ni  -in^n  nx  nny^  ny  nnnojn  bv 
:Drx  i^xD  amp:)  yy^d^^  y:h  ni'?:jm  irn^x 

9._Soferim,  /.  c,  ly  'i:i"'J3^i  ij^  n^i^Hi  ^:^-l^x  '•'•^  nnno^n 
mp:)  "lyniz;  'j;  Chip:)  "i^d  ij^j^^i  ub)]  n^i;; 

10.— Diqduqe  ha-Teamim,  ?.  c,  ^D^iy  "1^  IJ^JD^I  1J^» 

11. — Massorah  Magna, /.  c,  in   "'''^  nnDDJH  Oy    1^:3^1   i:^ 

lEd.  Baer  has  "J^p:  1i?3ti^  V'";?1  "1^:2^1  lib* 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


1.    Works  m  Which  the  Points  are  more 
Particularly  Treated. 

Blau,  Ludwig,  Masoretische  Untersuchungen.  Strassbarg,  1891. 
"  "         Zur  Einleitung  in  die  Heilige  Schrift.    Buda- 

pest, 1894. 
BuxTORF,  Johannes,  Tiberias  sive  Commentarius  Masorethicus. 

Basileae,  1620. 
EiSENSTEiN,  J.  D.,  The  early  Masorah  on  the  dotted  Letters  in 

the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  in  Ner  ha-Maarabi, 

Vol.  I. 
GiNSBURG,   Christian   D.,    Introduction   to   the    Massoretico- 

Critical    Edition   of    the    Hebrew  Bible. 

London,    1897. 
J^ONIG,  Eduard,  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament.    Bonn,  1893. 
KoNiGSBERGER,  Bernhard,  Aus   Masorah  und  Talmudkritik. 

Berlin,  1892. 
Strack,  Hermann   L.,  Prologomena   Critica  in  Vetus  Testa- 

mentum  Hebraicum.    Leipzig,  1873. 
Weir,  Thomas  H.,  A  Short  History  of  the  Hebrew  Text  of 

the  Old  Testament.    London,  1899. 
Hiller,  Mat.,  De  Arcano  Keri  et  Kethib.  Tubingen,  1692. 
HtJPEDEN,  Jo.  Henr.,  Neue  wahrscheinliche  Muthmassung  von 

der  wahren   Ursache  und  Bedeutung  der 

ausserordentlichen  Punkte.  Hannover,  1751.* 


^  The  author  is  sorry  to  say  that  he  has  been  unable  to  consult  the  works  of 
Hiller  and  Hiipeden  ;  their  views  have  been  derived  from  quotations  by  subse- 
quent scholars. 

131 


132  Bibliography, 


2.      WOEKS   ON   THE   JEWISH   LaBOES,    HlSTOEY   AND 
LiTEEATUEE   IN   GeNEEAL. 

Bachee,  Wilhelm,  Die  Agada  der  Tannaiten.    2  vols.,  Strass- 

burg.     1st.  vol.  (2d.  edit.)  1903  ;  2d.  vol. 

(1st.  edit.)  1890. 
"  "      Die  Alteste  Terminologie  der  Jiidischeu  Schrifl- 

auslegung.    Leipzig,  1899. 
Benzingee,  J.,  Hebraische  Archaologie.     Leipzig,  1894. 
Blau,  Ludwig,  Studien  zur  althebraischen  Buchwesen.     Strass- 

burg,  1902. 
BoussET,  D.  WiLHELM,  Die  Religion  des  Judenthums  im  neutes- 

tementlichen  Zeitalter.     Berlin,  1903. 
Dahne,  August  Feedinand,  Geschichtliche   Darstellung  der 

jiidisch-alexandrinischen  Religions-Philoso- 

phie.     2  vols.     Halle,  1834. 
Deeenboueg,  J.,  Essai  sur  THistoire  et  la  G6ographie  de  la 

Palestine ;  Premiere  Partie  :  Histoire  de  la 

Palestine.     Paris,  1867. 
Dobschutz,  Liebee,  Die  einfache  Bibelexegese  der  Tannai'm. 

Halle  a.  S.,  1893. 
Edeesheim,  Alfeed,  The  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah. 

2  vols.     New  York,  (no  date). 
Feankel,  De.  Z.,  Ueber  den  Einfluss  der  palastinischen  Exegese 

auf  die  alexandrinische  Hermeneutik.  Leip- 
zig, 1851. 
"  "         Ueber      palastinische     und     alexandrinische 

Schriftforschung.     Breslau,  1854. 
Geigee,  Abeaham,  Lehr-  und  Lesebuch  zur  Sprache  der  Misch- 

nah.     Breslau,  1845. 
<<  "  Urschrift  und  Uebersetzungen  der  Bibel  in 

ihrer   Abhangigkeit  von  der  innern  Ent- 

wickelung  des  Judenthums.    Breslau,  1857. 
Gfeoeee,  a.  F.,  Kritische  Geschichte  des  Urchristenthums :   I 

Theil,  Philo  und  die  judisch-alexandrinische 

Theosophie.     2  vols.     Stuttgart,  1835. 


Bibliography,  133 

Graetz,  Prof.  H.,  History  of  the  Jews.     6  vols.    Philadelphia, 

1891-1898. 
Hamburger,  Dr.  J.,  Eeal-Encyclopadie  des  Judentums.    3  vela. 

Strelitz  i.  M.,  1896. 
Joel,  Dr.  M.,  Blicke  in  die  Religiongeschichte  zu  Anfang  dee 

zweiten  christlichen  Jahrhunderts.     2  vols. 

Breslau,  1880-1883. 
JosT,  J.  M.,  Geschichte  des  Judenthums  und  seiner  Secten.     3 

vols.     Leipzig,  1857-1859. 
Lewit,  Julius,  Darstellung  der  theoretischen  und  praktischen 

Padagogik  im  jiidischen  Altertume.     Ber- 
lin, 1895. 
Low,  Leopold,  Graphische    Requisiten   und    Erzeugnisse    bei 

den  Juden.     2  vols.     Leipzig,  1870-1871. 
Marcus,  Sam.,  Die   Padagogik  des   Israeliten  Volkes.    Wien, 

1877. 
MiELZiNER,  M.,  Introduction  to  the  Talmud.     2d  edit.     New 

York  and  London,  1903. 
NowACK,  W.,  Lehrbuch  der  Hebraischen  Archaologie.     2  vols. 

Freiburg  i.  B.  und  Leipzig,  1894. 
Perles,  Felix,  Analekten  zur  Textkritik  des  Alten  Testaments. 

Munchen,  1895. 
Schurer,  Emil,  Geschichte  der  Jiidischen  Volkes  in  Zeitalter 

Jesu  Christi.     3  vols.     Leipzig.     Vol.  I, 

4th  edit,  1901 ;  Vols.  II  and  III,  3d  edit., 

1898. 
ScHiJsz,  Philipp,  Palaestinensische  Geistesrichtung  u.  Religiose 

Parteien  zur  Zeit  Jesu.     Wein,  1898. 
Siegfried,  Carl,  Philo  von  Alexandria  als  Ausleger  des  Alten 

Testaments.     Jena,  1875. 
Simon,  Joseph,  L'Education  et  Flnstruction  des  Enfants  chez  les 

Anciens  Juifs.     Leipzig,  1879. 
Stehelin,  John  Peter,  Traditions  of  the  Jews  or  Doctrines  and 

Explanations  contained  in  the  Talmud  and 

other   Rabbinical   Writings.       (Translated 

from  the  Dutch.)    2  vols.     London,  1743. 
Strack,  Herm.  L.,  Einleitung  in  den  Talmud.     Leipzig,  1894. 


134  Bibliography, 

SuRENHUSius,  GuiLiELMUS,  Bi^Xo^  KaraXXayr]^.  Amsterdam, 
1713. 

Waehner,  And.  Geog.,  Antiquitates  Ebraeorum.  2  vols.  Got- 
tingen,  1743. 

Wolf,  Christophorus,  Bibliotheca  Hebraea.  4  vols.  Ham- 
burg and  Leipzig,  1715-1733. 

ZuNZ,  Dr.,  Die  gottesdienstlichen  Vortrage  der  Juden.  2d  edit, 
by  N.  Briill,  Frankfurt  a.  M.,  1892. 

3,    Various  Collections  and  Encyclopaedias. 

Briggs,  Charles  Augustus  ;  Driver,  Samuel  R.  ;  Plummer, 
Alfred,  The  International  Critical  Com- 
mentary on  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments.  New  York,  1901. 
(Not  complete.) 

Cheyne,  T.  K.,  and  Black,  J.  Sutherland,  Encyclopaedia 
Biblica,  4  vols.,  New  York,  1899-1903. 

Hastings,  James,  A  Dictionary  of  the  Bible.  5  vols.,  New 
York,  1902-1904. 

Haupt,  Paul,  The  Sacred  Books  of  the  Old  Testament  printed 
in  colors,  Leipzig,  1893.  (Not  yet  com- 
plete). 

The  Jewish  Encyclopedia.     New  York,  1901-1905. 

KiTTO,  John,  A  Cyclopaedia  of  Biblical  Literature  (originally 
edited  by  J.  Kitto),  3d.  edit,  in  3  vols., 
edited  by  William  Lindsay  Alexan- 
der.    Edinburgh,  1876. 

KoHUT,  G.  Alex.,  Semitic  Studies  in  memory  of  Alex.  Kohut. 
Berlin,  1897. 

Marti,  Karl,  Kurzer  Hand-Commentar  zum  Alten  Testament. 
20  Abteilungen,  Freiburg,  i.  B.,  1898- 
1904. 

MtJLLER,  IwAN  VON,  Handbuch  der  klassischen  Altertums- 
Wissenschaft,  in  systematischer  Darstellung. 
2d  edition,  1892.  .  .  . 


Bibliography,  135 

NowACK,  W.,  Handkommentar  zum  Alten  Testament.  13  vols. 
Gottingen,  1897-1903. 

Repertorium  fur  Biblische  u.  Morgenlandische  Litteratur,  18 
vols.,  1777-1786. 

Smith,  William,  A  Dictionary  of  the  Bible.  3  vols.,  Boston 
and  London,  1863. 

Stkack,  Herman  L.  und  Zockler,  Otto,  Kurzgefasster  Kom- 
mentar  zu  den  Heiligen  Schriflen  Alten  u. 
Neuen  Testamentes,  2d.  edit.  14  Abteil., 
Miinchen,  1891-1897. 

Studia  Biblica  et  Ecclesiastica,  Essays  in  the  Biblical  Archae- 
ology and  Criticism  and  kindred  Subjects, 
by  Members  of  the  University  of  Oxford. 
4  vols.,  Oxford,  1885-1896. 

4.     Editions  of  the  Jewish  Writings  generally 
used  in  the  present  work. 

Aboth  de  R.  Nathan.  Ed.  Salomon  Schechter.  (Two  recensions 
in  parallel  columns.)     Vienna,  1887. 

Diqduqe    ha-Te'amim.     In  the  Venice  Bible,  1517-18.   Appen- 
dix D. 
«  «  Ed.  S.  Baer  und  H.  L.  Strack.     Die 

Diqduqe  Ha-t®amim  des  Ahron  ben  Mos- 
cheh  ben  Ascher.     Leipzig,  1879. 

Leqach  Tob.  Lekach  Tob  (Pesikta  Sutarta) ;  ein  Agadischer 
Commentar  zum  ersten  u.  zweiten  Buche 
Mosis  von  R.  Tobia  b.  Eliezer,  herausge- 
geben  v.  Salomon  Buber.  Wilna,  1884. 
"  '^  Lekach  Tob,  etc.  (on  Leviticus,  Numbers  and 
Deuteronomy)  edited  by  Aharon  Moses 
Padua.     Wilna,  1884. 

Midrash  Mishle.     Edited  by  Salomon  Buber.     Wilna,  1893. 

Midrash  ha-Gadol.  Midrash  Hag-gadol,  forming  a  collection  of 
ancient  Rabbinical  homilies  to  the  Penta- 
teuch. Edited  by  Salomon  Schechter. 
Genesis,  Cambridge,  1902. 


136  Bibliography, 

Midrash  Rabba.     With  the  Commentaries  ♦P1D1''T  •^D1T|:j;  .yy 

'^DV  *r\T\'nO  nijno.     2  vols.    Wilna,  1896. 
Sekhel  Tob.     Sechel  Tob.     Commentar  zum  ersten  und  zweiten 

Buche  Mosis,  von  E.  Menachem  b.  Salomo, 

herausgegeben  von  Salomon  Buber.    2  vols. 

Berlin,  1900-1901. 
Sifre.     Sifr4   deb^   Rab.      Herausgegeben   von  M.    Friedmann. 

Wien,  1864. 
Soferim.      Masechet  Soferim,  herausgegeben  von   Joel   Miiller. 

Leipzig,  1878. 
Midrash  Tanchuma.     Edition  of  Frankf.  a.  O.,  1701. 
Talmud  of  Babylon.     Edition  of  Wilna.     12  vols.     1897. 
Talmud  of  Jerusalem.     Edition  of  Krotoshin,  1866. 

"  "  Le   Talmud   de   Jerusalem,  transl.    by 

Moise  Schwab.    12  vols.   Paris,  1871-1890. 
Tosefta.     Edited  by  Moses  Samuel  Zuckermandel.     Pasewalk, 

1881. 
Yalqut  Shimeoni.     Ed.  Frankfurt  a.  M.,  1687. 


Corrigenda:  p.  7,  n.  12,  read  MittheUungm ;  p.  1-15,  dele  ''Ten"  in  the 
title  at  the  top  of  the  pages  ;  p.  17,  1.  1,  read  Amoraim. 


L 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
I                                STAMPED  BELOW 

AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED   FOR   FAILURE  TO   RETURN 
THIS   BOOK   ON   THE   DATE  DUE.    THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  50  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY    AND     TO     $1.00     ON     THE    SEVENTH     DAY 
OVERDUE. 

APR    17  1935 

f 

1 

f 

f; 

% 

1, 

i 

I 

, 

;■ 

I 

LD  21-100m-8,'34 

i^nlGl 


^^ 


■-^T'^. 


''^^^ 


^■"'  -'^ 


^^ 


w- 


^w 


'm- 


■V    A 


